Ajaya Kumar Bhuwalka Vs T. M. Narayana Swamy

AJAYA KUMAR BHUWALKA S/O SURESHKUMAR BHUWALKA AGED: 43 YEARS, R/O H.NO.2996, 12^TH A MAIN , 5^TH CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR H.A.L II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 008.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THAMMAIAH S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA (LATE) AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O H.NO.4, MYLARA LINGESHWARA NILAYA, 5^TH CROSS, GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD, K.R. PURAM EXTENSION, BANGALORE. AND ALSO RESIDED AT BAGGAVALLI VILLAGE, AJJAMPURA HOBLI, THARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMANGALUR DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI K.V.R. PRASAD S/O SRI K.C. KONDAIAHA AND MRS. K. MEENAKSHI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O:32/A, PARVATHI NAGAR, Y. NAGESH SHASTRI NAGAR

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10736-DB RFA No. 100039 of 2021

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

MAIN ROAD,

¶17

BALLARI- 583 101 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED:22.08.2025

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.3 (IMPLEADING APPLICANT))

¶20

AND:

¶21

T. M. NARAYANA SWAMY S/O CHIKKA MUNI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O PLOT NO. 99, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, 1^ST STAGE, PATEL NAGAR, BALLARI

¶22

M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD., Deleted as per REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, Order dated REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 71, 22..08.2025 3^RD CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE-560025

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1

¶24

APPEAL AS AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.2 IS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2023)

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.09.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.249/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BALLARI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶26

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10736-DB RFA No. 100039 of 2021

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

¶32

This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari, in O.S. No.249/2012. The Trial Court decreed the suit and declared that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit properties and consequently, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was declared to be not binding on the plaintiff and it also held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit schedule properties in due process of law. This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the said suit.

¶33

When this matter was listed for final hearing, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and have filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), which reads as follows:

¶34

"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE FILED BY APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908:-

¶35

Appellants and Respondent No. 1 submit as under:

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10736-DB RFA No. 100039 of 2021

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

1. At the instance of the well-wishers, and with an intention to settle the dispute amicably, the parties have mutually agreed to settle the controversy involved in the above case, in the manner stated here under.

¶40

2. The Appellants 1 and 2 have filed the above appeal challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, dated 18/09/2020 in O.S. No.249 of 2012, whereby the suit filed by Respondent No. 1, for the reliefs of declaration of title and possession in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties has been decreed.

¶41

3. It is submitted that, it is the case of the Appellants that, Respondent No. 1 had executed an Agreement of Sale dated 29/08/2008, in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties in favour of M/s Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd., and also had executed a Power of Attorney of the same date in favour of Appellant No. 1, authorizing him to execute the Sale Deed/s, in favour of the said company or its nominees and that, on the basis of the said Power of Attorney, Appellant No. 1 has executed a Registered sale deed in favour of Appellant No. 2. However, Respondent No. 1 who is the Plaintiff in the trial court, had claimed that, he had terminated the said Power of Attorney.

¶42

4. It is submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, Appellant No. 2 has sold Items 3 to 6 of the Suit Schedule Properties through his Power of Attorney holder in favour of Appellant No. 3. Further, under a Registered sale deed dated 04/07/2016, Appellant No. 2 had sold Items 1 and 2 and 7 to 9, to one Mr.M.Srinivas through his Power of Attorney holder. Subsequently Appellant No.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10736-DB RFA No. 100039 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

3, has purchased said properties i.e., Items 1 and 2 and 7 to 9 of the Suit Schedule Properties from Mr.M.Srinivas, under two Registered sale deeds dated 05/11/2020. Appellant No. 3, was not aware of the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings and, only recently he has come to know of the same, and he has filed the application to come on record as a party Appellant in the above case.

¶46

5. It is submitted that, after coming to know of the aforesaid proceedings, Appellant No. 3 has approached Respondent No. 1 for amicable settlement, and after mutual discussions and negotiations, Respondent No. 1 has agreed to not to make any claim in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties, and has executed a Registered Confirmation Deed dated 21/08/2025, along with his wife and children, in favour of Appellant No. 3, by receiving a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- from Appellant No. 3, towards the full and final settlement of all his claims in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties. A copy of the Registered Confirmation Deed dated 21/08/2025 is herewith enclosed.

¶47

6. In view of the aforesaid Registered Confirmation Deed executed by Respondent No.1, along with his family members, Respondent No.1 hereby withdraws all his claims in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties, and hereby confirms that, Appellant No. 3 is the absolute owner in possession of the Suit Schedule Properties.

¶48

7. In the light of the aforesaid settlement and the execution of the Registered Confirmation Deed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of Appellant No. 3 in respect

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10736-DB RFA No. 100039 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

of the Suit Schedule Properties confirming that Appellant No. 3 is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Properties, the parties to this compromise hereby pray that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, dated 18/09/2020 in O.S.No. 249 of 2012, be set aside and the above appeal may kindly be disposed of by this Hon'ble Court in terms of this compromise petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶52

Sd/Sd/ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 APPELLANT No. 1 Sd/Sd/ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT No. 3 APPELLANT No. 2 Sd/Sd/ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No. 1 APPELLANT No. 3

¶53

Sd/RESPONDENT No.1

¶54

BENGALURU DATE: 22/6/2025"

¶55

A copy of the confirmation deed dated 21.08.2025

¶56

referred in the compromise is enclosed along with the compromise petition.

¶57

The terms and conditions of the compromise are perused. Since the compromise is not opposed to any law, the same is accepted. The appellants and respondent No.1 are present and are identified by their respective counsel. They agree to the terms of the compromise. As a token of

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10736-DB RFA No. 100039 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

acceptance of the terms of compromise, the appellants and respondent No.1 have affixed their signature/s to the order sheet of this Court.

¶61

In view of the above, the suit filed in O.S. No.249/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballari, as well as this appeal stand disposed off in terms of the compromise.

¶62

Office is directed to draw a decree in terms of the

compromise.

Sd(R.NATARAJ)

JUDGE

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶67

SMA/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5

Ajaya Kumar Bhuwalka v. T. M. Narayana Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaya Kumar Bhuwalka v. T. M. Narayana Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu S/O Paragond Jakati Aliyas Katageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.T.M.Kotraiah S/O T.M. Shivamurtaiah Vs Sri.K. Venkatesh S/O K. Marisiddappa

Basavaraj S/O Veerappa Ankali Vs Basavarajeppa Urf Basavaraj

Sri.Channabasappa S/O. Siddappa Sanglad Vs Smt.Yallavva W/O. Bhimanagouda Doddagoudar

Smt. Sumitra W/O. Ramanayak Patil Vs Sri. Ramanayak S/O. Dharamanayak Patil

Sri. Ramanayak S/O. Dharamanayak Patil Vs Smt. Sumitra W/O. Ramanayak Patil