Karnataka High Court
Smt Doddamma vs Sri Rajath Vernekar on 20 October, 2022
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
RFA No. 809/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T G SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 809/2017 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT DODDAMMA
W/O.LATE SRI GUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
2. SRI G NAGESH
S/O.LATE SRI GUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
3. MASTER RAJATH
S/O.SRI NAGESH
Digitally 4. KUMARI PRAGNA
signed by K S D/O.SRI NAGESH
RENUKAMBA A3 AND A4 ARE MINORS
Location: REP. BY THEIR FATHER
High Court of AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
Karnataka SRI G.NAGESH
5. SRI G MURALI
S/O.LATE GUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. MASTER ULLAS
S/O.SRI G.MURALI
MINOR, REP. BY HIS FATHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SRI G.MURALI
ALL ARE R/AT NO.13, 12TH CROSS
PARSI GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 003
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI H.E.RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
RFA No. 809/2017
AND:
1. SRI RAJATH VERNEKAR
S/O.LATE SRI S.RAMADAS SHET
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.19, "SHARADAMMA NILAYA"
4TH TEMPLE ROAD, SIDDANTHI BLOCK
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003
2. SMT.VEDAVATHI
W/O.SRI PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
3. MASTER VIPUL
MINOR
REP. BY HIS MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT.VEDAVATHI
4. SMT G BHARATHI
W/O.SRI LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. KUMARI ARPITA
D/O.SRI.LOKESH,
MINOR
REP. BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT.G.BHARATHI
ALL ARE R/AT
NO.13, 12TH CROSS
PARSI GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K N NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF
CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.02.2017 PASSED BY THE XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-14) IN OS NO.8389/2012
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
-3-
RFA No. 809/2017
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri H.E.Ramesh, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sri K.N.Nitish, learned Advocate for respondent No.1.
2. Appellants are owners of suit schedule property.
They have agreed to sell the same in favour of first respondent.
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are family members of the appellants.
3. Learned Advocates on both sides submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. Accordingly, they have filed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC where under the appellants have agreed to pay Rs.80,00,000/-
to the first respondent within two months.
4. Sri H.E.Ramesh submits that after filing the compromise petition, he has been instructed to seek two more months' time to pay the entire amount. He submits that appellant undertakes to deposit Rs.40,00,000/- in two months and balance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- in next two months; and file an affidavit to this effect within four weeks.
-4- RFA No. 809/20175. Both learned advocates submit that the suit is one for specific performance and parties have agreed on the terms mentioned in the memorandum of compromise. Sri.Nitish submits that first respondent has no objection for appellant paying the sum of Rs.80 lakhs within the time limit mentioned above. The compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is duly signed by the appellants, respondents and their respective advocates. They pray that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of settlement recorded in the compromise petition.
6. The terms of compromise read as follows:
"The parties beg to submit as under:
1. The Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in OS No.8389/2012 on the file of the Learned 31st Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-
14), seeking the relief of specific performance of the Agreement to sell dated 27/6/2012. Under the said agreement, the Respondent No.1 had paid a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only). The suit came to be decreed, directing the defendants therein to execute a registered sale deed concerning the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff (Respondent No.1 herein), by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.48,00,000/ (Rupees forty-eight lakhs only). Challenging the Judgment and Decree, Defendant Nos.1 to 6 have preferred the above Appeal. Defendant Nos.7 to 10 have not filed any appeal.
-5- RFA No. 809/20172. During the pendency of the above appeal, the Parties have settled the matter as under:
a) The Appellants herein shall pay a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only) to the Respondent No.1 in full and final settlement of all his claims concerning the suit property within two months from this day.
b) Time shall be the essence of this compromise.
c) In the event the Appellants fail to pay the said amount of Rs.80,00,000/- within the stipulated two months from this day, the decree passed by the trial Court shall stand revived and the Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to execute the decree passed by the Trial Court.
d) The said period of two months shall not be extended in any event, for any reason.
3. This Compromise is arrived at between the parties, out of free will and without any threat/coercion/ fraud/misrepresentation.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dispose the above appeal in above terms as stated supra and direct the registry to draw decree accordingly, in the interest of justice.
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for Appellants Appellant No.1
Sd/-
Appellant No.2 for himself and as
Natural Guardian of Appellant No.4 Sd/-
Appellant No.3 Sd/-
Appellant No.5 for himself and as Natural Guardian of Appellant No.6 Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for Respondent No.1 Respondent No.1 Bangalore 10/10/22"
-6- RFA No. 809/20177. We have perused the compromised petition. In our opinion, compromise arrived at between the parties is lawful and hence accepted. By consent, time limit mentioned in clause 2(a) and 2(d) shall be read as four months. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of compromise petition and the suit in O.S.No.8389/2012 shall stand dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Decree be drawn accordingly.
8. Registry shall refund the court fee in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6