Smt.M v Vasuda Vs M Manjunath — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt.M v Vasuda Vs M Manjunath — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in terms of the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; Office to draw modified decree appending the compromise petition as part of the decree; each party to bear own costs; appellant entitled to refund of full court fee as the settlement is a judicial settlement.

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC (contents read over and voluntariness affirmed) and disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition.

Key takeaways

Office directed to draw a modified decree in terms of the compromise petition, appending the copy of the compromise petition as part of the decree.ratio¶¶33
Each party to bear its own costs.ratio¶¶34
Because the settlement is a judicial settlement, the appellant is entitled to refund of the full court fee, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jage Ram vs. Ved Kaur and others (SLP No.723/2023, dated 28.01.2025).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal (MON), RSA No.92 of 2021 (M V Vasuda v. M Manjunath), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, decided 18.08.2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V Srishananda: A compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC signed by the parties and their advocates was presented; contents were read over to the parties in Kannada, who affirmed that the settlement was voluntary and free from force, coercion or undue influence. Holding there was no impediment to acceptance, the Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition, directed the Office to draw a modified decree appending the compromise petition as part of the decree, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jage Ram vs. Ved Kaur and others, SLP No.723/2023 dated 28.01.2025, the appellant was held entitled to refund of the full court fee since the settlement was a judicial settlement. Background: RSA under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2020 in RA.No.14/2017 (III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura), which had partly allowed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2016 in OS.No.67/2009 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura).

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31945 RSA No. 92 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.92 OF 2021 (MON)

BETWEEN:

SMT.M V VASUDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE G V CHANDRASHEKHAR R/AT BESIDE MUNICIPAL COLLEGE M.G ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR -562 101

…APPELLANT

(BY SMT.SUSHEELA, SR. ADVOCATE ALONGWITH SMT.ASHIKA GURUMATH AND SRI SOMANATHA H, ADVOCATES)

AND:

M MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA R/AT BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES FORT CHIKKABALLAPUR -562101

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SUBRAMANYA P, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.No.14/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.10.2016 PASSED IN OS.No.67/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31945 RSA No. 92 of 2021

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

A compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure signed by the parties and their respective advocates, is presented before the Court.

Parties are present.

The contents of the compromise petition are read over to the parties in Kannada language in the presence of their advocates.

Parties submit that the terms of the compromise petition depict the true terms of settlement. They also unequivocally submit that there is no force, coercion or undue influence in reaching out the compromise and it is voluntary.

Accordingly, there is no impediment for this Court to accept the compromise petition and dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition.

Hence, the following:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31945 RSA No. 92 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.

(ii) Office is directed to draw modified decree in terms of the compromise petition appending the copy of compromise petition as part of the decree.

(iii) Parties to bear their own costs.

(iv) Since the settlement has taken place by judicial settlement, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jage Ram vs. Ved Kaur and others passed in SLP No.723/2023 dated 28.01.2025 , appellant is entitled for the refund of full Court Fee.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 110