A Ramamurthy Vs Abdul Sudheer — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

A Ramamurthy Vs Abdul Sudheer — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC; decree directed to be drawn accordingly with the compromise petition forming part and parcel of the decree; respondent No.1 confirmed the appellant's sole and absolute ownership of Schedule A & B property, received Rs. 25,00,000/- compensation, delivered vacant possession of Schedule B property, and undertook to withdraw all claims and PCR No.53979/2021; pending I.As. stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 in O.S.No.27134 of 2015 passed by the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-No.20) should be quashed as prayed in the Regular First Appeal. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Upon enquiry, the Court recorded that the appellant and respondent No.1 settled the matter between them amicably on their own will and wish without any undue influence or coercion by any third party, and placed their submission and the joint compromise petition on record.

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the joint compromise petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant and respondent No.1.ratio¶84-85
A decree is to be drawn in accordance with the compromise ("Draw the decree accordingly"), and the copy of the compromise petition shall be read as part and parcel of the decree.ratio¶87-88
In view of disposal of the main appeal in terms of compromise, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No.1269 of 2023 (High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar; decided 03.07.2026) arising from the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 in O.S.No.27134 of 2015 (cited in the compromise petition as O.S No.27134/2011) of the XXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-No.20), was DISPOSED OF IN TERMS OF A JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, between the appellant A Ramamurthy and respondent No.1 Abdul Sudheer. Recorded terms: respondent No.1 confirmed the appellant's sole and absolute ownership of Schedule A & B property (PID No.78-2-42, Shivajinagar, including the 480 Sq.Ft shop 'Jaya Bakery & Fast-Food Centre'); confirmed receipt of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) as compensation vide DD No.025037 dated 01.07.2026 (HDFC Bank, MG Road Branch) in full and final satisfaction of all claims; confirmed delivery of vacant, peaceful and unencumbered possession; agreed that all averments in O.S.2713/2011 stand unconditionally withdrawn and the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 shall stand overridden and merged by the compromise terms; and undertook to unconditionally withdraw and close PCR No.53979/2021 pending before the XXIX ACMM, Bengaluru and any other pending proceedings. Breach entitles the appellant to recover the sum paid with 24% interest thereon. Decree directed to be drawn accordingly, with the copy of the compromisepetition to be read as part and parcel of the decree; pending I.As., if any, stood disposed of as not surviving. No precedent was cited or discussed; the disposal was purely consensual under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC.

NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1269 OF 2023 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

A RAMAMURTHY

S/O LATE SRI T.V.ANNASWAMY

AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT “ARCOT HOUSE NO.1, KINGSTON ROAD, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR K, SR.COUNSEL FOR MS. INDIA S PANCHAGAVI A/W SRI. M.V.SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

ABDUL SUDHEER

S/O SRI. K.K. MOHAMMED, AGED 51 YEARS, NO.22/8, HOSPITAL ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

T.S. NAGESH S/O T.D. SHIVAPRAKSH, AGED 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.185/3, NHIGBTF, 5^TH PHASE, NEW TOWN,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

YELAHANKA,

BENGALURU - 560 064.

T. S. BALACHANDRA S/O T.D.SHIVAPRAKASH AGED 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.185/3, NHIGBTF, 5^TH PHASE, NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

T. S. SRIDHARMURTHY S/O T. D. SHIVAPRAKASH AGED 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.185/3, NHIGBTF, 5^TH PHASE, NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANITHA C, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 03/07/2026 – NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS D/W)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27134 OF 2015 BY XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH-NO.20) AND ETC.,

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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant and respondent No.1 as well as learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Arun Kumar appearing on behalf of Ms. India S.Panchagavi along with Sri.M.V.Sundararaman, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt.Anitha.C, learned counsel for respondent No.1 are present before the Court.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No.1 have submitted Joint Compromise Petition filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and upon enquiring the appellant and respondent No.1, they have submitted that they have settled the matter between them amicably on their own will and wish without any undue influence and coercion by any other third party. Therefore, requested to dispose of the appeal in terms of the compromise petition.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

Their submission and the joint compromise

petition are placed on record.

To the joint compromise petition, the appellant and respondent No.1 have put their respective signatures and the Advocates for both the parties have also put their respective signatures. The joint compromise petition reads as under:

“JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 BETWEEN APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT No.1

The Appellant (A. Ramamurthy, son of Late T.V Annaswamy) and Respondent No.1 (Abdul Sudheer, son of K.K Mohammed) above named submit as follows:

1. The Appellant has instituted the above appeal challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 in O.S No.27134/2011 passed by XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ("Judgment"). The background to the present appeal is as follows:

a. Respondent No.1 filed OS No.27134/2011 against Respondent No.2 to 4 seeking to prevent unlawful dispossession from Shop bearing No.22/8 Hospital Road "Jaya Bakery and Fast Food Centre" measuring 480 Sq.Ft forming part of property bearing PID No.78-2-42 situated at Central Street, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001 (morefully described as " Schedule B Property "), in building on property bearing PID No.78-2-42 situated at

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

Central Street, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001 (more fully described as " Schedule A Property ").

b. Respondent No.1 was described as the tenant and Respondent No.2 to 4 as the lessors in OS No.27134/2011. Respondent No.2-4 did not contest the suit.

c. Although the Appellant was the sole and absolute owner of the Schedule Property, he was not made party to OS No.27134/2011. Accordingly, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 08.04.2019 in O.S No.27134/2011, the Appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the Judgment on ground of fraud and misrepresentation.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, Respondent No.1 approached the Appellant to amicably resolve the dispute and the parties with the intervention of wellwishers, have settled the matter. The terms and conditions of which are recorded hereunder.

TERMS OF COMPROMISE:

Respondent No.1 hereby confirms and agrees that:

2.1. Appellant is the sole and absolute owner of the Schedule Property (i.e., Schedule A & B Property)

2.2. He was in occupation of the Schedule B Property, running a business under the name and style "Jaya Bakery & Fast-Food Centre".

2.3. He does not have any claim over any portion of property Schedule A Property, i.e., property bearing PID No.78-2-42 situated at Hospital Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001.

2.4. He has received a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) from Appellant as compensation for vacating the Schedule B Property vide Demand Draft bearing number DD No.025037 dated 01.07.2026 drawn on HDFC Bank, MG Road Branch.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

2.5. He has delivered vacant, peaceful and unencumbered physical possession of the Schedule B Property to the Appellant and that the Appellant is in sole and absolute possession of Schedule B Property.

2.6. He has not encumbered Schedule B Property, in any manner nor is any other person/s in possession/occupation/entitled to any portion of Schedule B Property or any portion of Schedule A Property.

2.7. All utility dues (electricity, water, maintenance etc) up to this date are paid and settled by him and there are no outstanding dues whatsoever in respect thereof.

2.8. To fully indemnify the Appellant and his successors-in title against any third-party claims arising in future in respect thereof/Schedule B Property.

2.9. He has removed all his belongings, furniture, fittings, stocks movable and other personal effects, from the Schedule Property.

2.10. The sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Only) received by him, is in full and final satisfaction of all his claims, demands, costs, dues, compensation and/or payments of any nature whatsoever. Respondent No.1 confirms that neither he nor any of his legal heirs, successors, or any person claiming through or under him, has any claim whatsoever against the Appellant.

2.11. Respondent No.1 undertakes that neither he nor any person claiming through him shall raise any demand and/or initiate any proceedings against Appellant and/or in connection with the Schedule Property or any part thereof, at any time in the future.

2.12. All averments, contentions, allegations and prayers in OS. 2713/2011 are unconditionally

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

withdrawn. The judgment and decree dated 08.04.2019 passed therein will stand overridden and merged by the terms of the compromise contained herein.

2.13. He will be unconditionally withdraw and close PCR No.53979/2021 pending before the XXIX ACMM, Bengaluru and any other pending proceedings against the Appellant.

3. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid terms by Respondent No.1, the Appellant shall be entitled to recover the sum paid to Respondent No.1 hereunder together with 24% interest thereon and initiate other proceedings against him, including execution of the decree passed pursuant hereto.

4. The parties submit that they have fully read and understood the contents hereof and have entered into this compromise voluntarily, without any duress or coercion, after obtaining legal advice.

SCHEDULE - A

All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing PID No.78-2-42 measuring 43,450 sft situated at Central Street, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001 and bonded as follows:

East by: Central Street West by: No 23 Hospital Road North by: Hospital Road South by: No 41 Central Street

SCHEDULE- В

(Premises occupied by Respondent No. 1)

Shop bearing No. 22/8 forming part of Property/building bearing PID No. 78-2-42 (Old No.22/8) measuring 480 Sq.Ft situated at Hospital Road, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru-560 001 and bounded as follows:

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:33400 RFA No. 1269 of 2023

HC-KAR

East by: Shop no 22/7 Hospital Road West by: Private Property North by: Main Road and Shivajinagar Bus Stop South by: Private Property”

5. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in terms

of the joint compromise petition.

Draw the decree accordingly.

The copy of the compromise petition shall be

read as part and parcel of the decree.

In view of disposal of the main appeal in terms

of compromise, pending I.As., if any, does not survive for

consideration and the same stands disposed of.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

UN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26