Sri K Ganasambandam S/O M R Kandaswamy ... vs Sri L Krishnamurthy S/O Late H Ningaiah on 18 January, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Ganasambandam S/O M R Kandaswamy ... vs Sri L Krishnamurthy S/O Late H Ningaiah on 18 January, 2011

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT SANGALORE 
DATED THIS THE 18" DAY OF IANUARY, 20:1   »T
BEFORE  A
THE HON'a:...E MR. JUSTICE AS:»--:O*'?..5i HIi'3C:'HIGI?:RjI: 
R.F.A.No.4/2011 f: u  4
BETWEEN: A "

SR1 K GANASAMBANDAM
S/O M R KANDASWAMY MUDALEAR

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS I '

R/O No.15, 15*" CROSS

ANAYAPPA BLOCK  
SHESHADRIPURAM 13"' MAIN ROAD. _  '
BANGALORE -»~ 560 0200-,'  I '

AND ALSO HAVING"SHOP?F§EME--S--E_S"~~_
CARRYING ON UND_ER--::Tki_E NAHE"S.T»i_L'E'AAT'
"ASHOK TEX",_B.EARiNG N-aj..I/3._'  ~
SITUATED AT'No.84<I,RV .'L1TH C:ROSS.

NEAR VYALIiv<AVA--_LTOWN'*POL1C'E._ 
STATION BAMSALORE - 03;_I<~,_     APPELLANT

(BYSRE RA'MES_HC~FIANDRA, ADVOCATE)
*°.\ND.I,     ..... 
S RT. I '1<.RI'S.%i§ N--AM~!.}

S/O L-ATE_»H E':I.N*--SAIA'H__}~
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

 NO.3'c";3, 14."? CROSS
 SADASHIVAHA-GAR'
., 1.I'1;'3AN'GALORE  5:30 080  REESPONDENT

(BY SR1 N V Vi}/W, ADVOCATE)

 THIS RFA IS FELED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE

  Ij'L)'i"3VC3.M.ENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2010 PASSED IN
'~.._O.S..No.9E:9/2007 OR THE FILE OF THE XII~ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND



Ix)

SESSIONS EUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SI;I_'I_ FOR
EEECTMENT.  

THIS R.F.A COMING on; FOR ADMISSION "IHIS 

DELIVEREC3 THE FOLLO'\ﬁ.iE!\é{°5:
QQDQMENT

This appeal is directed against the 

dated 28.09.2010 passed by the com orR;dé"xII .:IdIdVI4A..lg;étylj';cI~;;II f.

Judge, Bangalore (CCH-27) in  ' 
2. Seeing the e|ementS'4--o.f sAe'ttle.n*IVei*It.[vvvtl1SSCourt suggested
the learned advocatesto explore tlne'--poSSl.bvjlEt'I'as".of arriving at a

settlement.

3. They  in bringing the two parties
together to atjree  Today a memorandum of
coV{I1prorni;§e"p.etition» unidller xC:)rder XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is filed. It
 Its  are extracted hereinbetow:

'f2'(l3__}It"iSAV"a.g_role'd".that the Appellant shall withdraw all the
gro.u_ndS.IIa%_Se--d In the appeai.

 (Ab) It.€'S..«agreed that the Appellant Shail hand over the
 vfacaht possession of the Schedule property to the
"R:eSporIdeht on or before 30"' of Eune, 20:2.



(C) it is agreed that the Appeliaht shall pay a monthly
rent of Rs. 5,000/'-- per month from 1.1.2011 tiil the date"*--.
of handing over the vacant possession of the s<:hed..;,i'~i:?,:"'<--._"'-

property.

(d) It is agreed that the Respondent shall not «

damages/merzse profit against the "'Appelia'r.:__"V 31.12.2010. i " "

(e) The Respondent is at Vlit>;er~ty to" rue proceedings on failure of Appella_n_t"'v.acating the _sehe_d7uie property on 30.06.2012/f""r-., it A

4. Both, the aAppellant._o_S;ri.V i{.,VGfana'sani.'lja*§1dam and the respondent Sri L.K?ris't{;n»a'_mp:i<thy_ "a:re:_"p:re'se'n--t=:before the Court.

They are identified i:$_y}tVhei"r're's:p"e¢t'iv'e Eealrned advocates. Their signatures the joivlnt':fcori1,p4rorﬁi--sepetition are also recognised by them. Boththuel paVrti.e's'.'sta.t_e' that they have entered into this se.tt|ementiof'~theirV.'ownV___yo.lition and without any duress from anybociy.-. _VVReV'Ce:di:n'g the compromise, this appeal is disposed of ». with t'l'aeA'i'o§'i _ oizdler:

Th'e_éppelIant shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the schedule property to the respondent on or before 30.06.2012.

V . _ K iirnt..tVh'e' 'ease ofA.SREERAMA1£

b) The appeiiant shail keep ciearing the monthiy rents at the rate of Rs.S,GOO/-- per month from i.i.20tI':if.ifi'E_:t'h,e date of his vacating the scheduée property..j7 'V'. C) The appeiiant shaii ﬁle an :afficiaviAt"_4'unVdeVrta!{VingI~to vacate the scheduie propertj/'«VartdVA'iikeeptpa.yingJ"it.he'._ rents, as stipuiated hereii'iVa:b~oye atv{a')--...ah:dVV"'-(V5)"Within 'V two weeks from today.

d) The respondent shaft -noti'Vc{ai'Vm_...ar--t$z.:~.damages, mesne profits, etg:., « i

e) The~a-pp§Ai:,§ht;'1tthaiinfijot' iinducsthany third party into the schieduie not cause any damage to the sch ie pro p-:~; rt';/.i.:-~'t' ' '«..,f)V the a'i'ppe£iantWciommits defauit in adhering to any of .é_e.thpe'.:.V:"t=:--:_§+.r':ttse-_si:ipuEated hereinabove, it is open to the A to resort to the initiation of the proceedings for eﬁecuting the eviction decree.

f f:."InA'the light of the Division Bench judgment of this court V. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK 4 LTD., B'i.0RE AND ANOTHER, reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4032, the office is directed to refund the entire Court fee to the ap;3eiEant's side.

6. This appeal is accordingly disposed of. No__o"r'd'e.r'V-es:

costs. _

7. Now that the main matter itseltis7.§iis'oosed:%"oi, survives for any consideration of Misef."€:yi.S3}'2Q11g'-.:t"'i~s""reje't:ted ° V as having become unnecessary.

byr,

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court