Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis Vs Sri.Hari

SRI. NIRPU FRANCIS S/O LATE S P FRANCIS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.1, JERUSALEM, GETHASEMANE GARDEN, OPP MANTRI ASTRA APRT, HENNUR BANDE, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SRI.HARI S/O LATE SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.41/11, HENNUR BANDE, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 043

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.26214/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH-74), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is by the defendants assailing the relief of declaration and injunction granted in O.S.No.26214 of 2013.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:27361 RFA No. 415 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Assailing the said decree the defendants are before this Court. Today, a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is filed duly signed by defendants and plaintiff. In terms of joint compromise petition, the parties have resolved the dispute and the plaintiff has acknowledged the defendants' right and title by accepting ₹10,00,000/- and also one site which is indicated at paragraphs 6 and 8 respectively. The payment of ₹10,00,000/- is indicated at paragraph 6, while allotment of one site bearing No.7 to plaintiff is indicated at paragraph 8.

¶35

Today a demand draft for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- is handed over to plaintiff in the open court. The compromise petition is taken on record.

¶36

On a specific query posed by this Court, the plaintiff, who is present in person, acknowledged the terms and conditions set forth in the joint compromise petition. When further questioned as to whether he had perused the contents of the said petition,

¶37

the plaintiff submitted that he has not engaged an advocate. However, he clarified that he does not intend to engage legal

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:27361 RFA No. 415 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

counsel, having already arrived at a settlement with the defendants.

¶42

In light of the above, this Court deemed it appropriate to read and explain the relevant portions of the joint compromise petition particularly paragraphs 6 and 8. The contents of the said paragraphs were translated into Kannada and explained to the plaintiff in open court.

¶43

Upon further query as to the receipt of monetary consideration, the plaintiff unequivocally stated that he had earlier received a cheque for ₹5,00,000/- prior to the filing of the compromise petition and today in open court he has received a demand draft for an additional sum of ₹5,00,000/-. Demand draft for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- is handed over to plaintiff in open Court.

¶44

On a careful perusal of the joint compromise petition and in view of the submissions made by the plaintiff in open court, this Court is satisfied that the compromise has been lawfully entered into by the parties. There is no allegation of coercion, undue influence, or duress. The plaintiff has voluntarily

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:27361 RFA No. 415 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

consented to the terms of settlement and has expressly acknowledged the right and title of the defendants. The compromise petition is found to be lawful and is accordingly accepted and placed on record.

¶49

In light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.26214/2013 on the file of the learned LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, stands set aside. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition.

¶50

The registry is directed to draw up a decree in accordance with the terms set out in the joint compromise petition.

¶51

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶52

SBN

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87

Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis v. Sri.Hari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Late Sri. S P Francis Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt. Mary Francis v. Sri.Hari

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

Sri H G Basavaraju Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Noor Fathima Jamal Vs Union of India

Mr. Suhas L Vs the Cheif Registrar Births and Deaths

Shri Manju G Gowda Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Mathrushree Mutyalaya Enterprises Vs the Commissioner

Rajesh Ravi Vs the Chief Commissioner