M Sampangiramaiah Vs Narayanappa

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. SECTION ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.08.2018 PASSED IN R.A.NO.229/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.576/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN.) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellants is not present.

¶25

However, appellant No.1 is present before the Court.

¶26

Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of

¶27

CPC r/w Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005, is placed before this Court, which is duly signed by the appellant No.1 party-in-person, respondent/plaintiff and the Advocates appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶28

The terms of Settlement is culled out as under for the sake of convenience:

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

“II. The aforesaid appeal was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, the appellant in person and the respondent along with his counsel were present, identified each other and they admit that the dispute is settled among themselves as follows:

¶32

1. Both the parties state that the suit schedule property was granted in favour of the Plaintiff (Sri. Narayanappa) by Government in Ashraya Scheme by issuing Hakkupatra in the year 1972, suit schedule property Junjar No.135/1, Katha No.66, Site No.66, formed out of Sy.No.123, consisting of a sheet roofing residential house measuring 15 feet x 13 feet and vacant site measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 40 feet totally measuring 2400 Sq.ft situated at Sulikunte Village, Kodathi Grama Panchayath, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk bounded as follows:

¶33

East by	:	Property of Motappa
West by	:	Road
North by	:	Gomala Property
South by	:	Property of Nanjappa

¶34

2. In view of this settlement the parties considering the relationship between them, they have agreed to share the suit schedule property equally divided/allotted ‘A’ and ‘B’ Schedule properties and hold the physical possession and enjoy their share in the suit schedule property as absolute owner.

¶35

3. In view of the settlement the Respondent/Plaintiff has agreed take Western side portion of ‘A’ schedule

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

property. Accordingly the Respondent/Plaintiff is entitled to hold the absolute right, title, interest and possession and enjoyment of the Western side portion of the ‘A’ schedule property as a absolute owner to extent said portion of property site bearing No.66, formed in Sy.No.123 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet totally measuring 1200 sq.ft. situated at Sulikunte village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk bounded on :

¶39

East by	:	Site belongs to Sampangiramaiah (Defendant)
West by	:	Government Road
North by	:	Government Road (Gomala Property)
South by	:	House of Muniraju (Earlier property of Nanjappa)

¶40

Further Respondent/Plaintiff (in O.S.No.576/2001) is at liberty to take khatha in his name in respect of aforesaid portion of ‘A’ schedule property for which the Appellant/Defendant has no objection.

¶41

4. In view of the settlement the Appellant/Defendant has agreed to take Eastern side portion of ‘B’ schedule property. Accordingly the Appellant/Defendant is entitled to hold the absolute right, title, interest and possession and enjoy the Eastern side portion of ‘B’ schedule property as a absolute owner to extent said portion of property site bearing No.66, formed in Sy.No.123 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet totally measuring 1200 sq.ft. situated at Sulikunte village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk bounded on:

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

East by	:	Site belongs to Motappa
West by	:	Site belongs to Narayanappa (Defendant)
North by	:	Government Road (Gomala Property)
South by	:	House of Muniraju (Earlier property of Nanjappa)

¶45

Further Appellant/Defendant (in O.S.No.576/2001) is at liberty to take khatha in his name in respect of aforesaid portion of ‘B’ schedule property for which the Respondent/Plaintiff has no objection.

¶46

5. In view of the settlement the parties undertakes to execute any other document legally required to be executed among themselves any deed or deeds or any papers that may be required in furtherance for the purpose of acceptance of mutation and change of mutation by the revenue authority for giving full effect to relinquishment of their subsisting right, title and interest if any over portion of the suit schedule property excluding to the extent of their respective agreed portion of the property under terms of this settlement.

¶47

6. In view of this settlement as described above the respective share of the parties out of suit schedule property to the extent of their respective portion, they are holding, all right, title, interest, physical possession and enjoy as a absolute owner of their share as described above.

¶48

7. Either of the party is agreed to relinquish all the right, title, interest in respect of the other party’s share/portion in the suit schedule property. Further the

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

parties undertakes to not interfere in the peaceful possession of the other party’s share/portion in the suit schedule property.”

¶52

The appellant No.1 and the respondent are

¶53

present before the Court.

¶54

Both the parties state that they have no claims of whatsoever nature against each other in future other than what has been agreed in the memorandum and they submit that the said Memorandum of Settlement is entered without force, fraud or any undue influence.

¶55

The Memorandum of Settlement is taken on

¶56

record.

¶57

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the

¶58

Settlement arrived between the parties.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶61

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

HC-KAR

KSHJ:

24.03.2026

ORAL ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO'

¶68

The present regular second appeal is listed for 'For Being Spoken To'. This Court vide order dated 12.03.2026, had disposed of RSA No.1883/2018 in terms of the compromise petition entered into between appellant No.1 and respondent. The Memorandum of settlement received from the Mediation Centre was duly signed by appellant No.1 and respondent.

¶69

Brief facts:

¶70

Appellant No.1/Plaintiff - Sri. Sampangiramaiah had filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.560/2001 against the respondent - Sri. Narayanappa and the respondent herein in turn, had filed a suit in O.S.No.576/2001 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the very same suit schedule property against appellant No.1/Plaintiff - Sri. Sampangiramaiah. Both the suits were clubbed and tried together.

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

The Trial Court decreed suit O.S.No.560/2001 filed by appellant No.1/Plaintiff - Sri. Sampangiramaiah and dismissed O.S.No.576/2001 filed by the respondent - Sri. Narayanappa. Aggrieved the respondent preferred regular appeals in R.A.Nos.226/2010 and 229/2010 before the First Appellate Court. Both the appeals were allowed and the suit of appellant No.1/Plaintiff - Sri. Sampangiramaiah in O.S.No.560/2001 was dismissed and the suit of the respondent - Sri. Narayanappa in O.S.No.576/2001 was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, appellant No.1/Plaintiff - Sri. Sampangiramaiah along with defendant No.2 in R.A.No.229/2010 has filed R.S.A.No.1883/2018 before this Court.

¶74

During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1/respondent arrived at a settlement before Mediation Centre. Based on the said settlement, this Court disposed of the appeal on 12.03.2026. However, it is noticed that appellant No.2 was not a party to the medication

¶75

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:14849 RSA No. 1883 of 2018

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

proceedings. Hence, the matter is listed for 'for being spoken to'.

¶78

Learned counsel for appellant No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no surviving claim against appellant No.2. A memo is filed by appellant No.1, who is present before this Court, seeking permission to not to press the appeal as against appellant No.2.

¶79

In view of the memo filed and submissions made, appropriate clarification requires to be issued to the earlier order dated 12.03.2026.

¶80

The appeal in RSA No.1883/2018 is dismissed as not pressed against appellant No.2 is concerned and order dated 12.03.2026 disposing the appeal in terms of the compromise between appellant No.1 and respondent shall stands affirmed.

¶81

Sd/-

¶82

JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶83

tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

M Sampangiramaiah v. Narayanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sampangiramaiah v. Narayanappa

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 Sujendra Vs Govindappa

Rajput Samaj(Karnataka) Vs Sri Lalchand D Jain

Smt. Dhakshayani. C Vs Sri. Mithilesh. L. N.

Smt. Asha M Jain Vs Smt. Kavitha M

Sri M Sampangiramaiah Vs Narayanappa

Sri Ramachandra Gowda Vs B S Narayana Gowda