Karnataka High Court
Sri Niranjan S Pamadi vs Sri Shivaji R Shet on 28 November, 2011
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
a 8 y SR_LCHANDRASHEKAR ~ ADV. FOR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. : DATED THIS THE 28" DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011. PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE. N.KUMAR - AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE a S. KEMPANNA REANO.1 149/201 DEC S/N ) | BETWEEN SRI NIRANJAN S /PAMADI » S/O SRI PLR: SAMP: ANGIRA MA SHE! Pry AGED ABOUT 32. YEARS, R/AL NO.47S, DEWAN NL MADHAVA RAG. BO. AD BASAVANAGUDIE. BANGALORE ~ 560 004 BL .R.SAMP >ANCIRAM A SHETTY | 5/0 SRL"PAMADI RAMACHANDRA SHETTY . -R/AT NO.4/3, DIWAN N. MADHAVA RAO ROAD, " BASAVANAGUDIL, BANGALORE: ~ 560 004 oh MRS. PSs NAGARATHNAMMA . W/O Sry P.R. SAMPANGIRAMA SHETTY R/ATNO.4/3, DIWAN N, MADHAVA RAO ROAD, _ BASAVANAGUDI, : BANGALORE -- 560 004 _ APPELLANTS Par! "M/S HOLLA AND HOLLA) = a id SRI SHIVAJI! R SHEP AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMARAYA SHE, R/AT B765/A & SRI GURUKRUPA, 1ST MAIN ROADS SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE ~ 560 010 7 bo MRS. VIJAYA S SHET AGED ABOUT S1 YEARS, W/O SRL SHIVAJI R. SHET R/AT 3765/A & B SRE GU IRUKRUPA,. IST MAIN ROAD, SUBRAM ANYE NAGAR. : BANGALORE ~ 560 010 © Co 4. MS. USHA 2°. Loe AGED ABOUT SLY i (EARS. : 4 MR RAGHAY ENDRA AGED ABOUT 29 9 YEARS. 5. MS. RAMYA as AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, | ALL ARE R ESIDING AT 3765 /A& B © SRI GURUKRUPA, IST.MAIN ROAD, SUBRAMANYANAGAR, BANGALORE ~ 560 010 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRLCHENNAKESHAVA B S - ADV.) Be THUS REA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OFC CPC, AGAINST THE on - JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.03.2011 PASSED IN . O5.8984/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XEXVI-ADDL. CITY "CPi. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE, SUIT FOR THE DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION a, THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- u aerereeupn amr sees eaon area cmnmar mera RSS Se Sees aa ERG TCE COME REECE ec suc au sae aL nO SEEN SUR Gs rs ae Ee . JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by defendants Lito Sin'.
trial Court which has decreed the suit of the plaintiff ~ with cost and declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that defendant No.4 was only a benamidar ef the same, I further declared the sale deed execitted by defendants 4 to 7 on 4,12,.2000 in favour of defendant No. Lin respect of the schedule property ab null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff by also granting a decree of permanent injunction' restraining defendanis i to 3 "from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and-enjoyment. -
2, ba tins appeal the parties have entered into a _ compromise. They have filed an application under order XXII Rule 3 of CPC setting out the terms of the . compror yise. All the parties to the proceedings are . before this Court. They have culy affixed their signature to the petition. Their respective advocates a pene wn have also signed the petition. All the parties admit execution of the compromise petition.
3. We have gone through the terms: of the judgment and decree of the trial scones be eas ae: he sale deed executed by defendants A to yan favour of defendant No.1 is restored» Further, under the terms of the agreement, defendants i . to. 3" paid 'a sum of £3,00,000/- to o the rs st pl laintift by ¥ we tv of a cheque as mentioned in the ne Further, the plaintill nas. ogieed, to haiid over vacant pessession of the schedule premises ie defendants L to 3 on or before | 20.12.201 L. The . 'plaintit and defendants 4 to 7 | -ackaowiodges iwecipt of %17,10,6060/- paid under the sale. deed dated 4:12.2000.
4. Im view of the aforesaid compromise the agreement is lawful. The compromise petition is "gecepted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the "compromise petition whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court is hereby set aside. The sale deed t a ead dated 4.12.2000 is held to be a valid document. appellants are entitled for refund of h alt aistitution fee while preferring this appeal.
Ordered accordingly.
The High Court Registry 1s direct ted ta return all the original documents filed, if z any, in 1 this appeal.
The cheque for refund of the court! fee be is sstied in the name of the first appells sale rs.