Smt. Hajira Bi Vs Sri. M. Krishnamurthy Rao

SRI THE TIBETIAN CHILDRENS VILLAGES HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT DHARMASALA HIMACHAL PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI TENZIN CHOODAK GYALPO S/O. LHUNDUP GYALPO

¶25

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BANGALORE, NO.T2, CRYSTAL VIEW APARTMENTS, NO.62, ST. JOHNS ROAD, BANGALORE PIN CODE 560 042.

¶26

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY-275 BENGALURU-MYSURU DIVISION KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PIN CODE 571 511.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI SUPREETH J, ADV., FOR R-4; SRI B.V. PRAKASH ANGADI, ADV., FOR R-5; V/O DTD:18.03.2021 R-1 H/S; R-2 SD & UNREPRESENTED)

¶29

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.55/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.10.2018 PASSED IN

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶31

OS.NO.248/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA.

¶32

IN RSA.CROB NO. 21/2022:

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

THE TIBETAN CHILDRENS VILLAGES HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT DHARMASALA HIMACHAL PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. TENZIN CHOODAK GYALOP S/O LHUNDUP GYALPA, HAVING ITS OFFICE ALSO AT SESHAGIRIHALOLI BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶35

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶36

(BY SRI SUPREETH S, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

SMT HAJIRA BI W/O LATE AJAZ PASHA @ AZEEZ PASHA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶39

SRI AKLEEM PASHA S/O LATE AJAZ PASHA @ AZEEZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶40

SMT. AIYESHA KOWSER D/O LATE AJAZ PASHA @ AZEEZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶41

SMT. HENNA KOWSAR D/O LATE AJAZ PASHA @ AZEEZ PASHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL RESIDING AT NO.3223, THOPKHAN MOHALLA, RAMANAGARA TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶42

SRI M. KRISHNAMURTHY RAO S/O ANANTHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO. 1081, 10TH MAIN RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶45

SRI C.P. RAJESH S/O. PUTTAMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT CHKKERE VILLAGE MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 501.

¶46

SRI T RAGHAVENDRA GOWDA S/O. M. THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 65, VANI VILAS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 004.

¶47

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY BENGALURU MYSURU DIVISION KASABA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.

¶48

...RESPONDENTS

¶49

(BY SRI G.L. VISHWANTAH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI V.C. RAJU & MS. MANASA B RAO, ADVOCATES FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI SANATH KUMAR ANGADI, ADV., FOR R-8; V/O DTD: 27.03.2023 NOTICE TO R-5, R-6 & R-7 ARE D/W)

¶50

THIS RSA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC PRAYING TO REJECT THE FINDING DATED 19.10.2022 CONSEQUENTLY SUSTAIN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE REJECTING/DISMISSAL OF THE SUIT AND DIRECT THE COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶51

THESE RSA AND RSA CROB COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶52

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶53

RSA No.345/2019 is filed by the appellants/plaintiffs

¶54

under Section 100 of CPC praying to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.248/2016 which

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶56

was upheld by the First Appellate Court in RA No.55/2018 for having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for cancellation of Sale Deed and permanent injunction. RSA CROB No.21/2022 is filed by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.248/2016.

¶57

Parties are referred to as per the rank before the Trial Court for convenience.

¶58

During the pendency of this appeal, the matter was referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre, Bengaluru, for settlement through mediation. Accordingly, report of the Mediation Centre dated 07.11.2024 is received by this Court.

¶59

In RSA No.345/2019, learned Senior Counsel Sri. G. L Vishwanath along with Sri. V. C. Raju, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Supreeth S, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Sri. B. V. Prakash Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.5 are present before the Court. Notice to respondent No.1 is held sufficient. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented before this Court.

¶60

In RSA CROB No.21/2022, Sri. Supreeth S, learned counsel for the cross objector, Sri. G. L. Vishwanath, learned

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶63

Senior counsel along with Sri. V. C. Raju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Sanath Kumar Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.8 are present before the Court.

¶64

Appellant No.2 appears for himself and also as Power of Attorney Holder for appellants 1, 3 and 4. Representative of respondent No.4 - Jigmeg Karleg is present before the Court.

¶65

The brief of settlement is that a portion of the schedule property i.e., 4 guntas is said to be acquired by National Highway Authority/respondent No.5/defendant No.5 and compensation is said to be awarded, shall be shared by both the plaintiffs/appellants and respondent No.4 in the ration 75:25 respectively. Further, the proposal made by defendant No.5 for acquisition of i.e., 483 sq.mts and the compensation that is to be awarded shall also be shared in the same ratio of 75:25 between plaintiffs/appellants and respondent No.4. The remaining properties other than the proposed acquisition of 483 sq. mts has to go to respondent No.4/cross objector absolutely. Further, if any other future acquisition is made by any other authority, the same shall go exclusively to respondent No.4/defendant No.4/cross objector.

¶66

7 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶68

As per the report of the mediation, terms of the

¶69

settlement reads as under:-

¶70

"TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶71

1. Each of the Appellants unconditionally agree confirm and accept that all sale deeds executed in respect of the SCHEDULE PROPERTY and impugned in O.S. 248/2016 and permissions, statutory or otherwise, preceding such sales are valid and any challenge to any or all the said deeds of sale stand withdrawn.

¶72

2. The Appellants and Respondent 4 agree, confirm and accept that the amount deposited hereinafter the 5th Respondent namely the National Highway Authority of India before the Hon'ble trial Court in O.S. 248.2016 on account of it having acquired 4 Guntas of land of the SCHEDULE PROPERTY (hereinafter the DEPOSITED AMOUNT ) continues to remain in deposit and is available for apportionment/distribution between the Appellants and the 4^th Respondent as hereinafter set out.

¶73

3. All the Appellants individually and collectively, for themselves and for and on behalf of all members of their respective families shall be entitled to claim and receive an amount equivalent to 75% of the DEPOSITED AMOUNT , together with accrued and/or payable interest if any, as compensation for the entire SCHEDULE PROPERTY having been sold by the late Ajaz Pasha. The 4^th Respondent shall be entitled to claim and receive the balance 25% of the DEPOSITED AMOUNT together with accrued payable interest if any.

¶74

4. The Appellants and the 4^th Respondent agree that the Appellants 1, 2, and 3 have executed

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶76

a Power of Attorney in favour of Akleem Pasha namely Appellant Number 4 and therefore he shall be entitled to apply for, claim, receive in his own name and acknowledge receipt of the aforesaid 75% of the DEPOSITED AMOUNT for himself and on behalf of all other Appellants. The said Akleem Pasha shall be entitle to sign /swear to affidavits, sign /execute all application forms, claim forms, bonds, security bonds, receipts, vouchers, acknowledgements for himself and on behalf of Appellants 1,2 and 3. Similarly the 4^th Respondent shall be entitled apply for, claim and receive the balance 25% of the DEPOSITED AMOUNT from the Hon'ble Court in O.S. 248/2016 and comply with ell prescribed formalities for that purposes.

¶77

5. The Appellants contend (i) that under a Gazette Notification dated 5th June 2020 published in the Gazette of India Number 1585 dated 5.5.2020 (a copy of which is annexed to this settlement) land to an extent of 483 square meters in Survey Number 77 Seshagiri Halli has been notified for acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India and (ii) that the said Survey Number namely 77 is a part of Survey Number 77/33 (Block 33) namely the SCHEDULE PROPERTY that is presently in the possession of Respondent Number 4. Parties agree that if the land referred to in the aforesaid Gazette Notification namely Survey Number 77 is acquired in future by the 5th Respondent and any compensation becomes payable or is paid or deposited in any forum by the 5th Respondent, the Appellants and Respondent Number 4 shall be entitled to claim or receive and apportion the compensation paid or payable in the proportion of 75% to the Appellants and 25% to the 4^th Respondent only if the Appellants are able to legally establish that the land in Survey Number 77 referred to in the said Gazette Notification Number 1585 forms a part of Survey Number 77/33.

¶78

9 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶80

6. The Appellants agree, confirm and declare that this settlement shall be in full and final settlement of all claims of any or all of the Appellants individually and collectively and for and behalf of their respective family members and undertake that none of them shall directly or indirectly institute any further or future legal proceedings against the 4^th Respondent or its successors in interest in any Court/ Forum relating to connected with the SCHEDULE PROPERTY and/or the DEPOSITED AMOUNT and all claims of each of the Appellants against Respondent 4 shall stand fully and finally resolved. No claims of any nature past present or future (except the right to receive 75% of any compensation for acquisition of any additional extent, of the SCHEDULE PROPERTY as specified in Clause 4 above) shall survive for enforcement in Tuture. The Appellants further declare confirm and state that apart from the family members /named/ detailed in the General Power of Attorney dated 29.11.2023 a copy of which has been handed over to the 4^th respondent, there are no other members of the family of the Appellants who are or will or are entitled to claim any manner of right title or interest in the SCHEDULE PROPERTY in future. The Appellants hereby agree to indemnify and keep indemnified the 4^th Respondent from any claims of any nature in future in respect of or relating to the SCHEDULE PROPERTY and agree to bear any liability arising therefrom.

¶81

7. The Appellants agree that in view of this settlement they withdraw the suit filed by them in O.S. 248/2016 and consequently withdraw all the allegations and contentions raised by them in the said suit and specifically the challenge to the sale deed in favour of the Respondent as also the reliefs claimed in the said suit.

¶82

8. The Appellants and 4^th Respondent agree that since they have resolved the dispute between

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:694 RSA No. 345 of 2019 C/W RSA.CROB No. 21 of 2022

¶85

them, and Respondent 4 has agreed to give up 75% of the DEPOSITED AMOUNT in favour of the Appellants, Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to this settlement more so as the Appellants are withdrawing the suit in O.S. 248/2016. Consequently, the presence of Respondents 1 2 and 3 may be dispensed with.

¶86

9. The Appellants and 4^th Respondent agree confirm and declare that consequent upon the execution of this Mediated settlement and acceptance thereof by this Hon'ble Court all claims of the Appellant past present or future (except as stated in Clause 4 of this Settlement) shall stand fully and finally resolved."

¶87

Mediation report is accepted and is treated as part and parcel of the records. In the terms of compromise, both RSA No.345/2019 and RSA CROB No.21/2022 stands disposed of.

¶88

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶89

DN

Smt. Hajira Bi v. Sri. M. Krishnamurthy Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hajira Bi v. Sri. M. Krishnamurthy Rao

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

Mr. Manjunatha @ Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Anand Kumar Vs Sri. Chandrashekhar P M

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs Smt. Kempamma

Smt. Mamtaz Begum Vs Smt. Nusrath Azmath

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri. Dasegowda

Hussaini Baig Alias Yasin Vs the State of Karnataka