R Subhadramma Vs R Susheela

(BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 21.04.2016; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED SRI. RAKSHITH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶40

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.7.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.200/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

¶41

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLMENT , THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶43

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶46

This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.200/2005 on the file of the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru [for short,

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:22338-DB MFA No. 6220 of 2014

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

' the family Court '], and the family Court, by the impugned judgment, has dismissed the appellants' suit for a declaration that the first appellant is the legally wedded wife of late Sri. Ramanarasimaiah and the other appellants and the fifth respondent are the children of late Sri. Ramanarasimaiah and the first appellant with the declaration that they are entitled to succeed to his estate with an appropriate declaration on the Will set up by the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶51

The first appellant and the first respondent are over 90 years old. The first appellant is not present in the Court, but her children [the second to fourth appellants and the fifth respondent] are present and in fact, this Court has permitted Sri. Rakshith, a learned counsel, to file a vakalat for the fifth respondent on their request. The second to fourth appellants and the fifth respondent are

¶52

5 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:22338-DB MFA No. 6220 of 2014

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

identified by the learned counsel on record for the appellants and by Sri Rakshith.

¶56

The first and second respondents are

¶57

present, and they are identified by Sri T. Seshagiri Rao, the learned counsel who is on record for them. The third respondent is also represented by Sri. T. Sheshagiri Rao, and the learned counsel submits that this respondent, who ordinarily resides in the United States of America, has constituted Power of Attorney authorizing the first respondent [his mother], to report a compromise. A copy of the power of attorney is also placed on record¹ .

¶58

The parties have settled the dispute

¶59

and in fact, an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [ CPC ] is placed on record. The terms of the settlement as seen in this application read that [a] the respondent No.1 will be

¶60

1 The fourth respondent is not a party to the proceedings.

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:22338-DB MFA No. 6220 of 2014

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

entitled to continue to receive all the retirement benefits paid by the Bangalore University, [b] she would also be entitled to the property bearing No.45, Park Area, 10^th Cross, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru, [c] the respondent No.1 has agreed to pay to the first appellant a total sum of Rs.67,50,000/-, and [d] the respondent No.1 through her counsel has handed over the Demand Drafts dated 02.06.2025, 31.05.2025 and 29.04.2025 as per the details mentioned in the compromise with the assurance that the balance would be paid by 10.12.2025.

¶65

Sri Papi Reddy, the learned Senior

¶66

Counsel who appears for the appellants, and Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao and Sri Rakshith, the learned counsels for the other parties as aforesaid, are heard on accepting the terms of compromise and the stipulation that if there is a default by the first respondent in paying Rs.37,50,000/-, the compromise concluded shall automatically stand

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:22338-DB MFA No. 6220 of 2014

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

cancelled and the appeal shall be restored for due consideration with obligation on the appellants and the fifth respondent to refund the amount received at the earliest with no deduction. Sri Papi Reddy, Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao and Sri Rakshith submit that this Court must consider the efficacy of the terms as agreed to ensure that the parties, who have litigated for almost about 20 years, do not come back to the same stage.

¶71

When put across to the parties, who are present, it comes across that the parties are at consensus ad idem that there will be no delay in tendering the balance amount in a sum of Rs.37,50,000/-, but in the unlikely and the unfortunate event of such delay, there shall be a decree in favour of the appellants to recover the same along with interest at 12% per annum with continuing charge on the subject property until the amount is received by the appellants.

¶72

8 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:22338-DB MFA No. 6220 of 2014

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

If the second to fourth appellants and the fifth respondent specifically agree to the same as does the first respondent, they are also categorical that the first appellant, who is over 90 years old, is confined to bed and cannot come to the Court, she has signed the compromise in consultation with them and that they will accept the terms of the settlement subject to the modification as now recorded. The first respondent also states that she has settled an apartment in favour of the second respondent, who will sell the same and mobilize money for payment of Rs.37,50,000/- as is now undertaken. The second respondent, when queried, accepts the same.

¶76

In the light of the afore, this Court opines that the parties have completely settled their differences as would be permissible in law and hence the appeal must be disposed of in the following terms.

¶77

9 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:22338-DB MFA No. 6220 of 2014

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

[A] The first to fourth appellants and the fifth respondent have received Demand Drafts drawn in favour of the first appellant for a total sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and have agreed to receive the remaining Rs.37,50,000/- from the first to third respondents by 10.12.2025.

¶81

B] If there is any default in tendering the amount, the appellants shall be entitled to enforce the decree to recover the balance amount [Rs.37,50,000/-] along with interest at 12% per annum from 10.12.2025;

¶82

C] There shall be an attachment for the aforesaid amount and interest on the subject property until the appellants acknowledge the receipt of the amount as is required under Order XXI Rule 1 of the CPC.

¶83