Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10966
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 707 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2018(DEC/INJ)
IN RFA 707/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI H C PUTTE GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO. 368, 11TH CROSS
2ND BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA 1. SRI L K BHIMA RAO A S/O LATE KEROJI RAO Location: H igh Court of AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Karnataka NO.140, 2ND CROSS
15TH MAIN, KURUBARAHALLI J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 086.
2. SMT. A REDDY CHANDRAKALA D/O M.N. REDDY ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDNG AT NO.217/2018
6TH MAIN ROAD ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT ULLAL MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 056.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.N. VASUDEV RAO SINDHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI. G. GURUPRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7346/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
IN RFA 708/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI H C PUTTE GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO. 368, 11TH CROSS
2ND BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. R P SOMASHEKHARAIAH .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI L K BHIMA RAO S/O LATE KEROJI RAO AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.140, 2ND CROSS
16TH MAIN, KURUBARAHALLI J.C.NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 086.
2. H MALLAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT NO.110, 1ST MAIN ROAD VALMIKINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026.
3. SMT. GURUSHANTAMMA W/O LATE H GANGAPPA AGED AOUT 57 YEARS PILLAGUMPA GRAMA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TQ BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
4. SMT. RADAMMA W/O LATE H LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.10, 1ST MAIN ROAD VALMIKINAGAR, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE-560 026.
5. SMT. A REDDY CHANDRAKALA D/O M.N. REDDY ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDNG AT NO.217/2018
6TH MAIN ROAD ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT ULLAL MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 056.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.N. VASUDEV RAO SINDHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE D/W V/O DATED: 22.05.2018 SRI. G GURUPRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.02.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8765/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. RFA No.707/2018 under Section 96 of CPC is filed by the plaintiff-Sri H.C.Putte Gowda challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-6) in O.S.No.7346/2006, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction has been decreed.
2. RFA No.708/2018 under Section 96 of CPC is filed by the plaintiff-Sri H.C.Putte Gowda challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by the XXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-6) in O.S.No.8765/2006, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and injunction has been dismissed.
3. Since both the appeals are interconnected and parties are same, they are taken up together and disposed of finally.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
5. During the pendency of these appeals, both the parties have compromised the matters. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have filed a compromise petition dated 23.02.2024 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The contents of the compromise petition is extracted hereinbelow:
“COMPROMSE PETITION/APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 R/W SECTION 15 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE.
That the appellant and Respondent No.1 in both the appeals submits as follows:
1. That the appellant herein, has purchased site bearing No.50 and 51, formed out of Sy.No.107/1A1, situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, under registered sale deed dated: 30/9/1991, from Kishore Babu who is the GPA holder of Gangappa.
2. That the respondent No.1 after many years have purchased the site No.51, from defendant No.2 to 4 under registered sale deed dated: 19/3/2005.
3. That since the Respondent No.1 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the basis of the sale deed, the appellant herein has filed suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.8765/2006. Similarly, the Respondent No.1 also filed suit for injunction against the appellant herein.
4. That the suit filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed and decreed the suit against the Respondent No.1 dated: 21/2/2018. The appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree filed appeal RFA No.707/2018, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.7346/2006, and RFA 708/2018, against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.8765/2006.
5. That during the pendency of the appeal, both appellant and respondent No.1, settled the dispute amicably and both of them, sold the schedule properties, i.e., Site No.50 and 51, in favour of A.Reddy Chandrakala, D/o M.N.Reddy Ashwath, for a valuable consideration of Rs.49,00,000/-(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs only).
6. That the Respondent No.1 has signed the said sale deed, as a consenting witness, to the sale deed dated: 19.01.2024, executed in favour of impleading applicant, Smt.A.Reddy Chandrakala.
7. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has no objection to allow both the appeals, and to set aside the sale deeds dated: 19/3/2005, executed by defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of Respondent No.1, and to dismiss the suit filed by him, O.S.No.7346/2006.
8. That in view of the above said circumstances, at the intervention of well-wishers and family friends, matter is settled. Further the respondent No.1 has received a amount consideration of Rs.27,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs only).
9. That the respondent No.1 submits that he has no claim of whatsoever in respect of site No.51, which is sold in favour of impleading applicant, under registered sale deed dated: 19/1/2024.
10. Hence, the appellant and respondent No.1 prays this Hon’ble Court to decree the suit in terms of the compromise petition and to allow the appeals accordingly.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, it is most respectfully prayed to allow the appeal, by setting aside the judgment and decree, dated: 21/2/2018 made i
