Disposed¶36

Sri Vishwanath S/O Late Narasimhan Pillai v. Sri Narayanachar G L

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2026RFA/175/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lok Adalath settlement; compromise petition; RFA disposed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC; mandatory injunction; temporary injunction; schedule 'B' area; construction without setback; O.S.No.6290/2006; O.S.No.26428/2014; respondents 1 and 2 undertook to give up rights; High Court of Karnataka; Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.; NC: 2026:KHC:25786.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties in O.S.No.26428/2014, in terms of the decree. ¶36

Sri Vishwanath S/O Late Narasimhan Pillai Vs Sri Narayanachar G L — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25786 R.F.A. No.175/2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.175/2013 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VISHWANATH S/O LATE NARASIMHAN PILLAI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.1/F, OLD NO.277 GARVEBHAVIPALYA MADIWALA, BANGALORE - 68.

¶9

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G. ADV.,)

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. NARAYANACHAR G.L. S/O SRI. G.S. LAINGAPPACHAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.79, BAVANA GAYATHRIPURA GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE 68. SINCE DEAD, REP. BY LR'S.

¶14

1(a) SMT. MAHALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE NARAYANACHAR R/AT. NO.79, "BAVANA" GAYATRIPURA, GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE, MADIWALA POST BANGALORE - 560068.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25786 R.F.A. No.175/2013

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

1(b) MS. MAMATHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O LATE NARAYANACHAR WORKING AT SHRISTI SPECIAL ACADEMY SY.NO.20, JATTIPALYA CHANNENAHALLI, 20^TH KM OFF MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-562130.

¶18

[AMENDED VIDE ORDER DTD:08.11.2016]

¶19

SRI. NAGESH KUMAR G.N. S/O NARAYANACHAR G.L. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.79, "BAVANA", GAYATHRIPURA GARVEBHAVIPALYA VILLAGE MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE 68.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER BOMMANAHALLI C.M.C. BEGUR ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560068.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.T. NATARAJ, ADV., FOR C/R1 & R2 AND ALSO FOR PROPOSED R1 (a & b) R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.11.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6290/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE AND DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:25786 R.F.A. No.175/2013

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.6290/2006 by the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short ‘the Trial Court’).

¶31

Sri.Muniswamy Gowda S.G., learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant was the defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondents for mandatory injunction to remove the schedule 'B' area shown in the plaint and for temporary injunction. The said suit came to be decreed by the Trial Court under the impugned judgment and decree. It is submitted that the appellant herein has also filed a suit in O.S.No.26428/2014 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for mandatory injunction as well as for permanent injunction on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 and 2

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:25786 R.F.A. No.175/2013

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

herein have put up the construction of their property without leaving setback and the parties, at the intervention of the well-wishers resolved the dispute before the Lok Adalath and the suit in O.S.No.26428/2014 was dismissed in terms of the compromise petition. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have undertaken to give up their rights claimed in O.S.No.6290/2006. It is also submitted that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this appeal may not survive for consideration. The said submission is placed on record.

¶36

3. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, in view

¶37

of the compromise arrived at between the parties in O.S.No.26428/2014 in terms of the decree.

¶38

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶39

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri Vishwanath S/O Late Narasimhan Pillai v. Sri Narayanachar G L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vishwanath S/O Late Narasimhan Pillai v. Sri Narayanachar G L

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. Pavan Vs Smt. Suvarna

Sri B M Muninarayanagowda Vs Sri B Ramegowda Since Dead by His Lrs.

Sri T P Hithendra Vs Smt Mamatha

Sri M Ramaiah Vs Sri N Basavaraja

Mrs Hazel Felicia Peres Vs Mrs. Jacqueline Mary Alphonso Nee Peres

Smt. Lakshmidevamma Vs D.V. Nanjunda Swamy