Mr Anantha Shankar C Vs Dr Ganesha C

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN OS No.7660/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGLAURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND ARREARS OF RENT.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶29

The appellant, represented by his Power of Attorney,

¶30

the wife, namely, Smt. Prathima Ananth and the respondents, who are also present in person as identified

¶31

by their counsel, have filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of of the Code of Civil

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB RFA No. 1598 of 2022

¶34

Procedure, 1908 stating that they have settled their inter

¶35

se dispute. The compromise petition reads as under:

¶36

"1. That the Appellant had filed a Original Suit in O.S.No. 7488/2018 against brothers before the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-15) in respect of Joint Family Properties. During the pendency of the suit the parties therein have come to suit settlement and filed a Compromise Petition on 26/11/2024 in the said suit.

¶37

2. That the Defendant No.1 and his wife Smt. Shashikala have filed a suit for ejectment against the Appellant herein in O.S.No.7660/2014 in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 30/07/2022.

¶38

3. That being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree he has preferred above appeal before this Hon'ble Court and obtained interim order of stay and said stay is till in operation.

¶39

4. That as already stated above parties in the suit that is OS. No.7488/2018 have filed a compromise petition and one of the conditions of the compromise petition is that the Appellant

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB RFA No. 1598 of 2022

¶42

shall handover physical and vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the Respondent No.1 herein within five months from the date of recording the compromise petition. Therefore, in view of the said condition the Appellant shall vacate and handover physical possession of suit schedule property to the 1^st Appellant herein within five months from the date of the compromise petition. The Respondents herein have agreed for the same.

¶43

5. That in view of the settlement between the parties herein this Hon'ble Court be pleased to refund the entire court fee of Rs.3,21,125/(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Madras represented by its Registrar General V/s M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 2662 has held that even in private settlement of dispute outside of court without requiring judicial intervention under Section 89 of CPC, the parties are entitled for refund of court fee. Hence, in view of the aid Judgment this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the office to refund the entire court fee paid that is Rs.3,21,125/on the Memorandum of the Appeal to the GPA

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB RFA No. 1598 of 2022

¶45

Holder of the Appellant herein - Smt. Prathima Ananth who is none other than his wife. The photocopies of the said Judgment are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this Compromise Petition."

¶46

The Power of Attorney of the appellant and also

¶47

the respondents state that they shall abide by the terms of the Settlement. The parties reiterate that the appellant shall handover physical possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent No.1 within five months effective from 26.11.2024.

¶48

Taking the submission made by the parties before us on record and also the reiteration of the contents of the compromise application, the appeal is disposed of as

¶49

settled. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant prays for refund of Court fee as paid by the appellant along with the appeal. He relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, REP. BY

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB RFA No. 1598 of 2022

¶51

ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL v. M.C. SUBRAMANIAM

¶52

AND OTHERS' reported in AIR 2021 SC 2662. He states

¶53

that the Court fee if allowed to be refunded, the same be paid to the Power of Attorney of the appellant, namely Smt Prathima Ananth.

¶54

Noting the said submission, in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to supra [along with the application], the Court fee be refunded to the power of attorney holder of the appellant, namely Smt Prathima Ananth.

¶55

The appeal as also the compromise petition are disposed of as settled out of Court.

¶56

SD/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶57

SD/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶58

AN/List No.: 1 Sl No:6

Mr Anantha Shankar C v. Dr Ganesha C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Anantha Shankar C v. Dr Ganesha C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr B a Lakshman Kumar Vs Union of India

Mr.Suresh Suvarna Vs Shirva Grama Panchayath

The Director General of Central Industrial Security Force Vs Shri.R. Sateesha

Smt Gangu Bai Ramesh Manakar IAS Vs Union of India

Sri.T.R Boranna Since Dead by His Lrs Sri T B Rajoo Vs Dr. Girish K Nashi

Mr Abdul Basheer Vs the State of Karnataka