Allowed¶57

Radhamma v. Nagarajachari

Karnataka HC16 Apr 2026RFA/2352/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mediation settlement; Section 89 CPC; Rules 24 and 25 Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005; Section 96 CPC appeal; RFA allowed; judgment and decree set aside and substituted in terms of settlement; compromise/settlement decree; suit for declaration and permanent injunction; legal heirs confirm registered sale deed dated 04.03.2021; O.S.No.1888/2003; X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26); death of sole respondent during pendency; Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 in O.S.No.1888/2003 set aside and substituted in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 12.03.2026; Registry to draw decree accordingly. ¶57

Radhamma Vs Nagarajachari — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 in O.S.No.1888/2003 set aside and substituted in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 12.03.2026; Registry to draw decree accordingly.

¶57

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal should be disposed of in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 12.03.2026 entered into between the parties under Section 89 CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.

¶49

Court's answer

The Court found no impediment to accepting the settlement dated 12.03.2026 entered into between the parties.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is allowed in terms of the settlement.

¶56

Key takeaways

The judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 in O.S.No.1888/2003 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26) are set aside and substituted in terms of the settlement, with the Registry to draw the decree accordingly.ratio¶57
Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of in view of the disposal of the appeal.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal (DEC/INJ) under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2019 in O.S.No.1888/2003 (X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, CCH-26), by which the suit of the original respondent/plaintiff Nagarajachari for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed. During the pendency of the appeal, Nagarajachari died on 07.06.2025 and was represented by his legal representatives (Jayamma, Vasu N., Keshav N. and Mohan Kumar N.). The matter was referred to mediation, resulting in a memorandum of settlement dated 12.03.2026 under Section 89 CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005; the legal heirs confirmed the registered sale deed dated 04.03.2021 (Doc No. JAY-1-07685-2020-21) executed by Nagarajachari in favour of the appellant in respect of a portion of the suit schedule property, and both parties gave up all claims against each other. Holding that there was no impediment to accepting the settlement, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and substituted the terms of the settlement; the Registry was directed to draw the decree accordingly, and pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20646 RFA No. 2352 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2352 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE ANNAYAPPA, R/AT NO. 409, 7^TH MAIN, 14^TH CROSS, SHASHRI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 028.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY M V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

NAGARAJACHARI SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶15

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

1(a) JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE NAGARAJACHARI

¶17

1(b) VASU N., AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGARAJACHARI

¶18

1(c) KESHAV N., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE NAGARAJACHARI

¶19

1(d) MOHAN KUMAR N., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE NAGARAJACHARI

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT BI,71/7, 4^TH MAIN,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:20646 RFA No. 2352 of 2019

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

J.P.NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 078.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

[BY SRI. MAHESH B J., ADVOCATE FOR R1(a) TO R1(d)]

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1888/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This matter was referred to the mediation centre to

¶32

explore the possibility of settlement. The Court has received the report from the mediation centre.

¶33

The terms of the settlement dated 12.03.2026 are recorded as under:

¶34

" MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF CPC READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) RULES, 2005

¶35

I. The Appellant has filed the above appeal set aside the impugned judgment and decree on 11.10.2019 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1888/2003 whereby the suit filed by Original Respondent/Plaintiff Sri

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:20646 RFA No. 2352 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Nagarajachari for declaration and injunction came to be decreed.

¶40

II. The aforesaid appeal was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, the Appellant and LR's of Respondent along with their respective Advocates were present, identified each other. Both the parties after a thorough discussion with the able assistance of their respective Advocates have resolved their disputes and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:

¶41

1. Both the parties submit that both parties have agreed to amicably settle the dispute taking into consideration,the duration of the litigation and litigation expenses.

¶42

2. Both the parties agreed and undertakes that Sri. Nagarajachari has executed a registered sale deed in favour of Appellant/Defendant vide document No. JAY-1-07685-2020-21 dated 04.03.2021 registered before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Jayangar, Bengaluru city in respect of portion of suit schedule property measuring East to West 35 feet and North to South 1 feet 9 inches totally measuring 61.25 sq.ft. towards northern portion of site No.426 situated at Yadiyuru Nagasandra, 2^nd Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru Old ward No.59, New ward No.167 Shasthrinagar, 14^th Cross, New Municipal No.604.

¶43

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20646 RFA No. 2352 of 2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

3. During the pendency of this appeal said Sir.Nagarjachari who is Respondent herein died on 07.06.2025 leaving behind his wife and 3 children to succeed his estate. The legal heirs of the Respondent herein taking into consideration the execution of sale deed dated 04.03.2021 made in favour of the Appellant/Defendant, hereby confirms the said transaction and agreed to go by the contents of the sale deed.

¶46

4. Both the parties state that they have no claims of whatsoever nature against each other in future.

¶47

5. This settlement is arrived at voluntarily and with full understanding of its legal consequences, without any coercion, misrepresentation, fraud or undue influence.

¶48

6. Both the parties agree to appear before the court with their proof of identity and enable the Hon'ble Court to record settlement.

¶49

III. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders disposing off the above appeal in terms of this agreement.

¶50

IV. Parties shall appear before the Hon'ble High Court for passing necessary orders in terms of the agreement whenever the matter is listed before the Hon'ble Court."

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20646 RFA No. 2352 of 2019

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The settlement is signed by all the parties, as well

¶54

as the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents.

¶55

This Court does not find any impediment to accept the settlement.

¶56

5. Accordingly, appeal is allowed .

¶57

The impugned judgment and decree 11.10.2019 in O.S.No.1888/2003 passed by X Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-26) are set aside and substituted in terms of the settlement. Registry to draw decree accordingly.

¶58

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending

¶59

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Radhamma v. Nagarajachari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhamma v. Nagarajachari

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

M/S Novel Enterprises Vs M/S Vardhaman Enterprises

Sri Muner Ahmad Khan Bakhsh Vs Central Silk Board

H P Somashekar Vs the Management of

Imran K Y Vs the State of Karnataka

J Gypson Daniel Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Rafi Vs the Special Land Acquistion Officer