IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1282/2022 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K.M. NARASIMHA NAVADA S/O LATE K.S. MANJUNATHA NAVADA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 754, 2ND FLOOR

60TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK Digitally signed RAJAJINAGARA by ARSHIFA BANGALORE 560010.

BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH …APPELLANT COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. PALANIMUTHU K, ADV.,)

AND:

1. SRI. K.M. HARIKRISHNA NAVADA S/O LATE K.S. MANJUNATHA NAVADA AGED 55 YEARS R/AT NO 754, 1ST FLOOR 60 TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560010.

2. SMT. K.M. ASHALATHA W/O RAJASHEKAR RAO .B D/O LATE K.S. MANJUNATHA NAVADA AGED 58 YEARS R/AT NO.32, GAYATHRIPURAM

1ST STAGE, BEHIND POLICE COMMISSIONER RESIDENCE MYSORE 19.

3. SMT. SUKANYA S. MURTHY W/O SRIDHAR MURTHY D/O LATE K.S. MANJUNATHA NAVADA AGED 53 YEARS R/AT NO.721, 1ST 'F' CROSS

3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGLAORE 5600079.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN HEGDE, ADV., FOR R1 R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)

******

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.1959/2020 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-16). SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2022 IN O.S.NO.1959/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-16) AND CONFIRMED IN JUDGMENT AND DECREE BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2022 passed in O.S.No.1959/2020 by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-

16).

2. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submit that the parties have settled the dispute before the Karnataka Mediation Centre and as per the instructions, a memorandum of settlement was drawn by the Mediator.

3. We have perused the terms of the settlement.

They are in accordance with law. The same is accepted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submit that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are present. On a query being made, the appellant and the respondent No.1 state that the terms of compromise were drawn based on their instructions, they have agreed to the same and have signed the agreement on their own volition.

5. The memorandum of the settlement reads as under:

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF CPC READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION)

RULES, 2005.

I. The Appellant has filed the present appeal for setting aside the judgement and decree dated 18.04.2022 in O.S.No.1959/2020 passed by XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-16) and confirmed in judgment and decree.

II. The Respondent No.2 and 3 are being the sisters of the Appellant and Respondent No.1, they have already relinquished their right, share, title and interest over the suit schedule property in favour of the Appellant and Respondent No.1. Therefore they have not participated in the mediation procedure.

III. The aforesaid appeal was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, the Appellant and Respondent No.1 are present along with their counsel to settle their disputes and they have agreed and arrived the following terms and conditions:

1. The suit schedule property consists of building on the ground floor commercial, first and second floor are residential property and third and fourth floor are commercial building (Paying guest). As it is not feasible partition the property between the Appellant and Respondent No.1. In view of the settlement the Appellant and Respondent No.1 hav