Smt Pushpa Ramu Vs Smt v Aruna Devi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt Pushpa Ramu Vs Smt v Aruna Devi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 28.11.2023 arrived at between the parties in Commercial Execution Case No.487/2022; Registry directed to refund the court fee to the appellants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeals (RFA No. 686/2018 c/w RFA No. 685/2018) should be disposed of in terms of the settlement dated 28.11.2023 arrived at between the parties in Commercial Execution Case No.487/2022, the claims of the respective parties being fully satisfied.

Court's answer

Since the claims of the respective parties appear fully satisfied, both appeals are disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties (settlement dated 28.11.2023 in Commercial Execution Case No.487/2022).

Ratio / Principle

The Registry is directed to refund the court fee to the appellants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.; oral judgment dated 25.02.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:11862) — RFA No. 686/2018 (partners of Cauvery Builders, Smt. Pushpa Ramu and Sri. B.K. Guruprasad) c/w RFA No. 685/2018 (Mr. Gaurav Benerjee), both under Sec.96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2018 passed in OS No.5418/2014 by the III Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, partly decreeing the suit for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages. The Court was informed that the dispute stood settled in terms of a settlement dated 28.11.2023 arrived at between the parties in Commercial Execution Case No.487/2022 on the file of the 85th Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru; the Court verified from the official website that, on the mediation report, the execution petition had been closed as fully satisfied. Holding the claims of the respective parties fully satisfied, the Court disposed of both appeals in terms of the settlement and directed the Registry to refund the court fee to the appellants. No precedent was cited; no issue on merits was decided.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11862 RFA No. 686 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 685 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 686 OF 2018 (RES) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 685 OF 2018

IN RFA No. 686/2018

BETWEEN:

SMT. PUSHPA RAMU W/O SRI. SEETHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PARTNER OF CAUVERY BUILDERS RESIDING AT SAMPIGE VILLAGE TURAVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 225

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. B.K. GURUPRASAD S/O B. KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PARTNER OF CAUVERY BUILDERS RESIDING AT DOOR NO.6-5-503 MARUTHI NAGAR EXTENSION ANANTPURA, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-515 001

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. G.M. SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. V. ARUNA DEVI W/O SRI. SREENIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.28-10520(46-I)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11862 RFA No. 686 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 685 of 2018

HC-KAR

NEAR B.C.HOSTEL, DEVANAGERE NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518 201

MR. GAURAV BENERJEE S/O SUKHENDU BANERJEE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.405, CAUVERY COMFORTS VENKATAPURA MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA BLOCK BENGALURU-560 034

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.2.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.5418/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.

IN RFA NO. 685/2018

BETWEEN:

MR. GAURAV BENERJEE S/O SUKHENDU BANERJEE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.405, CAUVERY COMFORTS VENKATAPURA MAIN ROAD KORAMANGALA BLOCK BENGALURU-560 034

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11862 RFA No. 686 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 685 of 2018

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT. V. ARUNA DEVI W/O SRI. SREENIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.28-10520 (46-I) NEAR B.C.HOSTEL, DEVANAGERE NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-518 501

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VENKATESHA C, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.02.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.5418/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT, ARREARS OF RENT AND DAMAGES.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

It is brought to the notice of the Court that, in terms of the settlement dated 28.11.2023 arrived at between the parties in Commercial Execution Case No.487/2022 on the file of 85^th Additional City Civil Court at Bengaluru, the dispute between the parties is settled.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11862 RFA No. 686 of 2018 C/W RFA No. 685 of 2018

HC-KAR

The Court has verified from the official website

the order passed in the execution petition. The Order reads as under:

Case is called out in open Court. Advocate for DHR present. Advocate for JDR present. Both parties present. Mediation report received. Both parties submits no objections. On perusal of the Mediation report, it reveals that, matter has been settled. Hence, in view of the Mediation report, petition closed as fully satisfied.

3. Since it appears that the claim of the respective

parties is fully satisfied, the appeals are disposed of in

terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

4. Registry shall refund the court fee to the

appellants.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7