Allowed

Sri. Y.v.Murali Krishna v. Seetha Rama Housing (p) Ltd.

Telangana HC13 Sept 2022AS/320/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal and interlocutory application based on a settlement. Quashing the lower court's decree dismissing a specific performance suit, the court recorded a compromise decree where the appellant paid an additional sum in exchange for the respondent executing a sale deed for the property.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree set aside. Compromise decree passed directing respondents to execute sale deed and hand over possession within two months.

Sri. Y.v.Murali Krishna Vs Seetha Rama… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAI)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE^{THIRTEENTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEA.VENKATESHWARA} REDDY

¶6

l.A.NO:¹ OF 2022

¶7

IN/AND

¶8

ApPFAL SUIT NO: 32O OF 2016

¶9

t.A. No.1 oF 2022:

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri. Y.V.Murali Krishna. S/o. Late Sri. Y. Sitaramaiah, Occ: Agricultural/ Business, R/o. Sitarama Enclave, Nizampet Road, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, R.R.District. (oR)

¶12

C/o. Seetarama Radio Stores, Z.P.Shops no: 2 & 3, AGK Road, Gudivada, Krishna utstrict-52i 30.l .

¶13

...PETITIONERI APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF

¶14

AND

¶15

'1 . Ii4/s. Seetha Rama Housing (p) Ltd., Rep by, its Marketing Director, Mr.Gogineni Mallikariun Rao, S/o.Sri.-Venkatgshwara Rao' Aged 70 years, At Flat no. 508, Viiavasiee Apartments, Beside Kamma Sangam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-73.'

¶16

(or)

¶17

Flat No. 405, Tai Enclave, Opp: Vasavi ENT Hospital, Lakdikapull, Hyderabad.

¶18

Gogineni Mallikariun Rao. S/o G.Venkateshwara Rao, Aged: 64 years, Occ. Marketrnq Directo'r. Seeta Rama Housing (p) Ltd, At Flat No.508, Vijayasree Apartments, Beside Kamma Sangam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-73

¶19

(or)

¶20

Flat No. 405, Taj Enclave, Opp: Vasavi ENT Hospital, Lakadikapul, Hvderabad

¶21

...RE''.NDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶22

Application under order 23 Rule 3 of the cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass the compromise decree and judgment as per terms and conditions of the memorandum of compromise.

¶23

¶24

A.S.NO.320 0F 2016:

¶25

Appeal under Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 96 of CPC against the^judgment and decree dated O211112015 made in OS No.376 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶26

For the Petitioner in lA No.1/22 and Appellant in AS : SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate

¶27

For Respondents in both : SRI C.MASTHAN NAIDU, Advocate

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY I.A.No.1 of 2022 In And APPEAL SUIT No.32O OF 2016

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶32

Heard learned counsel on both sides. Perused the record

¶33

Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2022 ts flled under Order 23, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') lor recording terms of compromise between the parties. The parties present are identified by learned counsel on both sides. Terms of compromise filed are read over and explained to them. Both the parties have agreed that the terms ol compromise are true and correctly recorded.

¶34

Plaintilf has preferred this appeal suit assailing the^judgment and decree in O.S.No .376 of 20 16 dated 02.11,.2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar wherein the suit^{filed for} specific performance was dismissed.^{However, as per the} terms ol compromise, due to intervention of^elders, :laintiffs have agreed to pay additional^{arnount of}

¶35

Rs.6,0O,000/- and tl.rev l.rave paid the said amount to the defendants arnd tlre delendants having ackrrowledged the said amolrrt agrced to oxecute registercd sale deed in favour o1'thc plaintifls or their nominees in respect of suit schedule A and B properlles of OS No.376 of 2006 within turo months from the date of compromise decree. Accordingh'. in terms of tl-re above cornpromise recorded, the judgmcnt and decree impugned in O.S.No.376 of 2006 dated 02.11.2015 is hereby set aside. This disposes I.A.No.1 c,f 2022 and A.S.No.32O of 2076. In the circumstan ces of tire case . there shall be no order as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if an1' pending, shall

¶36

sands closc(1 .

¶37

¶38

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRIJE COPY// GD SECTION OFFICER

¶39

¶40

The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy t)istrict at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. (with records)

¶41

One CC to Sri C.lVlastan Naidu, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advbcate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies

1 I

HIGH COURT

DATED:'1310912022

JUDGMENT

t.A.NO.1 0F 2022 INIAND AS.No.320 of 2016

¶49

*1HE SI4 rt
c<br>a) i
U
2 0 JAll zild ,I
:wn
-.,

¶50

DISPOSING OF IA T.I\ID A.S. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶51

G
qft
t\v

¶52

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶53

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI)

¶54

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶55

PRESENT

¶56

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶57

APPEAL SUIT NO: 320 OF 2016

¶58

(l.A.NO: 1 OF 2022)

¶59

Between:

¶60

Sri. Y.V.Murali Krishna, S/o. Late Sri. Y. Sitaramaiah, Occ: Agricultural/ Business, Rl/o. Sitarama Enclave, Nizampet Road, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, R.R.District.

¶61

(oR)

¶62

C/o. Seetarama Radio Stores, Z.P.Shops no 2 & 3, AGK Road, Gudivada, Krishna District-521 301 .

¶63

...PETITiONER/ APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF

¶64

AND

¶65

1 lvl/s. Seetha Rama Housing (p) Ltd., Rep by, its Marketing Director, Mr.Gogineni Mallikarjun Rao, S/o.Sri. Venkateshwara Rao, Aged 70 years, At Flat no. 508, Vr.jayasree Apartments, Beside Kamma Sangam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-73.

¶66

(or)

¶67

Flat No. 405, Taj Enclave, Opp: Vasavi ENTHospital, Lakdikapull, Hyderabad.

¶68

Gogineni Mallikarjun Rao, S/o G.Venkateshwara Rao, Aged: 64 years, Occ: Marketing Director, Seeta Rama Housing (p) Ltd, At Flat No.508, Vijayasree Apartments, Beside Kamma Sangam, Amer:rpet, Hyderabad-73

¶69

(or)

¶70

Flat No.405, Taj Enclave, Opp: Vasavi ENT Hospital, Lakadikapul, Hvderabad

¶71

...RES,.NDENTS/ DEFENDANTS

¶72

Application under Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 96 of CPC against the decree of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar passed in OS No.376 of 2006 daled 0211112015.

¶73

t.A.NO. 1 0F 2022:

¶74

Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to pass a decree in terms of the lt/emorandum of Compromise filed therewith as between the appellants and respondents in the said appeal No.320 of 2016 on the file of the High Court.

¶75

The appeal and l.A. coming this day for orders as to settlement in the presence of Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri.C.[,"lastan Naidu, Advocate for the Respondents, appellants and respondents through their respectrve Advocates having filed in lA No.'1 of 2O22 requesting the Court to pass a decree in terms Memorandtrm of compromise entered into between them and upon perusing the appeal grounds,^judgment and decree of the lower court and memo of compromise purporting to have been signed by the parties and their Advocates and filed with the said lA No.1 of 2022 and it appearing from the said memorandum of compromise that the parties herein have entered into compromise and settled the matter out of court in terms memorandum of compromise filed herein.

¶76

This Court doth record the terms of the said memorandum of compromise in original whereof is filed in the said lA No.1 of 2022 and a copy whereof is annexed hereto and doth in terms of the said memorandum of compromise declare order and decree as follows :-

¶77

That the appeal be and hereby is disposed of;

¶78

fhat the^judgment and decree impugned in OS No.376 of 2006 dated 0211112015 be and hereby is set aside.

¶79

That in lieu of the said settlement, the aprrellant/ plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.6,00,0001 to the respondents/ defendants/ second parties towards full and final settlement of additional sale consideration amount and the respondentsi defendants hereby admits and acknowledge the receipt of the said amount towards full and final settlernent with respect to the subject matler and the schgdule^'A' &^'B' properties.

¶80

That the respondents/ defendants have agreed to execute a registered sale deed or sale deeds in favour of the appellant / plaintiff or his nominee with respect of the schedule 'A'&'B' properties in OS No.376 of 2006, and also handed over the vacant physical possession of the same to him or his nominee within '2' months from the date of the present decree of compromise, without demanding any additional sale consideration amount.

¶81

That in the event if the respondents/ defendants fail to execute the registered sale deed or sale deeds in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff or his nominee within '2' months from the^(late of the present decree of compromise the appellant/ plaintiff/ is at liberty to execute lhe present decree of compromise against the responclents/ defendants and against the suit schedule^'A' &^'B' properties in OS No.376 of 2006,

¶82

That the parties agree and admit that they shall bear their own costs.

¶83

SCHEDULE^'A' PROPERTY

¶84

All that the land admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts, in Sy.No.732 situated at Koheda Village, erstwhile Hayathnagar Mandal, presently comes under the Abdullapurmet It4andal, R.R.District, and bounded by:

¶85

East Land of Sy. No.724 West Part of Land in Sy.No.732 North Land in Sy.No 734 South Land in Sy.No.732

¶86

SCHEDULE^'B' PROPERTY

¶87

All that the land admeasuring Ac.2-00^gts, in Sy.No.730 situated at Koheda Village, erstwhile Hayathnagar lr,4andal,^presently comes under the Abdullapurmet lvlandal, R.R.District, and bounded by:

¶88

East Land of Sy.No.726 West Land in Sy.No.731 North part of the Land in Sy.No.730 South Land in Sy.No.729

¶89

Sdi-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOTNJSEGTSTRAR //TRUE COPY// (*

¶90

SECTION OFFICER

¶91

¶92

The Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶93

fwo CD Copies

¶94

(Along with a copy of the Memorandum of compromise)

HIGH COURT

DAf ED:131Os12022

{

DECREE |.A.NO.1 0F 2022 INiAND AS.No.320 ot 2016

¶101

DISPOSING OF IA AhID A.S. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶102

o
t
\qw

Sri. Y.v.Murali Krishna v. Seetha Rama Housing (p) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Y.v.Murali Krishna v. Seetha Rama Housing (p) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katakam Prashanth Vs Rayagiri Narsimulu

Gadila Lasya , Anusha Vs GadilaBharath Kumar

Karingula Anji Reddy Vs Chinthakuntla Raji Reddy

Smt. Kokkonda Balamani Vs Akiredygari Ram Reddy

Smt.Lagisetti Dhanasri Urmila Vs Sangepu Ravikiran

Dasari Sowjanya Vs Dasari Sampath