Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri.Channabasavaiah Vs Sri. T. Sunil Kumar Dutt — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri.Channabasavaiah Vs Sri. T. Sunil Kumar DuttSri.Channabasavaiah v. Sri. T. Sunil Kumar Dutt

Dismissed¶51

Sri.Channabasavaiah v. Sri. T. Sunil Kumar Dutt

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025RFA/810/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench, RFA No. 810 of 2022 (SP), decided 11-11-2025, NC: 2025:KHC:45923-DB; coram Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ (judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil J). Specific performance suit O.S. No.1654/2015 (VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru), decree dated 24.11.2021 challenged by RFA filed under Sec.96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; appellant Channabasavaiah (adv. Suyog Herele E.), respondent T. Sunil Kumar Dutt (adv. S. Shaker Shetty, C/R). Disposed by joint memo of parties: amicable out-of-court settlement; prayer to release balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- deposited in execution case Ex.No.926/2022 (VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru CCH-19) in favour of appellant/judgment debtor; appeal dismissed as settled out of Court / dismissed as withdrawn; Registry to refund eligible court fee to appellant. Keywords: joint memo, out-of-court settlement, court fee refund, execution deposit, Mandya/Malavalli, no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as settled out of Court (recorded as dismissed as withdrawn); Registry to refund the eligible court fee to the appellant. ¶51

Why is it important?

In view of the joint memo filed by the parties recording the out-of-court settlement, the appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court. ¶51

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as settled out of Court (recorded as dismissed as withdrawn); Registry to refund the eligible court fee to the appellant.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 in O.S. No.1654/2015 decreeing specific performance should be set aside and the suit dismissed against the appellant. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the joint memo filed by the parties recording the out-of-court settlement, the appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court.

Key takeaways

The Registry shall refund the eligible court fee to the appellant by following the prescribed procedure.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 810 of 2022 (SP) [NC: 2025:KHC:45923-DB], High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 11.11.2025 (Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.; oral judgment per Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.). Regular First Appeal under Sec.96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 of the Learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No.1654/2015 decreeing the suit for specific performance. During the pendency of the appeal the parties filed a joint memo recording an amicable out-of-court settlement, praying that the executing court (VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru CCH-19) release to the appellant the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) deposited by the respondent/decree holder in Ex.No.926/2022, that the appeal be dismissed as settled out of Court, and that the entire court fee be released in favour of the appellant. Held: in view of the joint memo the appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court (accordingly noted as dismissed as withdrawn); Registry to refund the eligible court fee to the appellant. No findings were recorded on the merits of the specific-performance suit.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45923-DB RFA No. 810 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.810 OF 2022 (SP)

BETWEEN:

SRI.CHANNABASAVAIAH

S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

R/AT SHETHALLI GRAMA

KIRUGAVALLU HOBLI,

MALAVALLI TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT 571 430.

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND:

…APPELLANT

SRI. T. SUNIL KUMAR DUTT

S/O LATE THAMMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.2547,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45923-DB RFA No. 810 of 2022

HC-KAR

1^ST FLOOR,

28th CROSS, 18th MAIN BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU 560 070.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. S. SHAKER SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.1654/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45923-DB RFA No. 810 of 2022

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed seeking the following releifs:

i) Call for entire records pertaining to the Suit in O.S. No.1654/2015 on the file of Learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.

ii) Set-aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2021 in O.S. No.1654/2015 on the file of Learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru and consequently dismiss the suit against the Appellant herein.

iii) Grant cost of the Appeal.

iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fir considering the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.

During the pendency of this appeal, a joint memo is filed which reads as under:-

It is submitted that the parties have amicably settled the matter in dispute as out of Court settlement; accordingly, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the executing court viz., VII Addl. City Civil Judge at Bengaluru(CCH-19) to release the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Only)

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45923-DB RFA No. 810 of 2022

HC-KAR

deposited in Ex.No.926/2022 by the Respondent/Decree Holder in favour of Appellant/Judgment Debtor.

In terms of the Joint Memo, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal as settled out of Court and the entire court fee may be released in favour of appellant herein.

In view of the aforesaid joint memo, the appeal is dismissed as settled out of the Court. Registry shall refund the eligible court fee to the appellant by following procedure. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn .

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 in O.S. No.1654/2015 decreeing specific performance should be set aside and the suit dismissed against the appellant.¶41
2.
Whether, in view of the joint memo recording amicable out-of-court settlement between the parties, the appeal should be dismissed as settled out of Court with refund of court fee to the appellant.¶50
The court held
In view of the joint memo filed by the parties recording the out-of-court settlement, the appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court.ratio¶51

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 in O.S. No.1654/2015 decreeing the suit for specific performance¶30
Learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 24.11.2021
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S. No.1654/2015 on the file of the Learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ended in judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 decreeing specific performance; the present RFA under Sec.96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC was filed challenging that decree, seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree and dismissal of the suit against the appellant.¶30
Prior proceeding
Execution case Ex.No.926/2022 before the VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19): Respondent/Decree Holder deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of Appellant/Judgment Debtor; the joint memo filed during the appeal prayed for release of that deposit to the appellant.¶49

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Sri. Channabasavaiah¶10
Suyog Herele E.
respondent
T. Sunil Kumar Dutt¶20
S. Shaker Shetty

Coram

AI extract

Anu Sivaramanmember¶52
Vijaykumar A. Patilauthor¶38

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 11 Nov 2025 · November
Registered: 22 Apr 2022
Case no.: RFA/810/2022
CNR: KAHC010194842022
Bench: Anu Sivaraman Vijaykumar A. Patil
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: RFA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Anu Sivaraman Vijaykumar A. Patil

Karnataka Industrial Vs Shivappa
10 Nov 2025
Thimmarayigowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
10 Nov 2025
Sri.B.R Kalashilpi Vs State of Karnataka
10 Nov 2025
Smt Vijaya Gopinath Vs Rajendra Savanur
11 Nov 2025
Mr.S. Kiran Vs Sri.K.S. Shreyas
12 Nov 2025
Pradeepa Thear Madhavan @ Pradeepa T M Vs the State of Karnataka
12 Nov 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri.Channabasavaiah v. Sri. T. Sunil Kumar Dutt, RFA/810/2022 (KA), decided on 11 November 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 in O.S. No.1654/2015 decreeing the suit for specific performanceLearned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 24.11.2021
Suit O.S. No.1654/2015 on the file of the Learned VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ended in judgment and decree dated 24.11.2021 decreeing specific performance; the present RFA under Sec.96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 CPC was filed challenging that decree, seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree and dismissal of the suit against the appellant.
Execution case Ex.No.926/2022 before the VII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19): Respondent/Decree Holder deposited the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of Appellant/Judgment Debtor; the joint memo filed during the appeal prayed for release of that deposit to the appellant.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil

Parties & counsel