Karnataka High Court
Sri V Anand vs Smt Aleema Bee on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB
RFA No. 1717 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1717 OF 2022 (SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI V ANAND
S/O LATE G. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O NO.105, "SHANGRILA",
ANANDANAGAR
OUTER RING ROAD,
MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU 560 037.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. THIMMEGOWDA N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
CHANNEGOWDA AND:
PREMA
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1. SMT. ALEEMA BEE
@ ALEEMA BEGUM
W/O LATE SARDAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. SRI. AFROZE PASHA
S/O LATE SARDAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB
RFA No. 1717 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. SRI. ASHRAFF PASHA
S/O LATE SARDAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
4. SRI. TABRAZ PASHA
S/O LATE SARDAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5. SMT. SHAHZAMA
D/O LATE SARDAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. SMT. SHAHJAHAN
D/O LATE SARDAR PASAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
7. SMT. NOOR JAHAN
D/O LATE SARDAR PASHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 7 ARE
R/AT SULTAN BAZAAR (ADJACENT ROAD)
MULBAGAL TOWN
MULBAGAL 563131
KOLAR DISTRICT.
8. SMT. ARUNA M.T
W/O KIRAN KUMAR V
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/ONO. 29,
DEEPA NURSING HOME ROAD,
MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU 560 037.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB
RFA No. 1717 of 2022
HC-KAR
9. SMT. K.M. NETHRAVATHI
W/O S. MUNIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
10. SRI. S. MUNIRAJ
S/O SRI SHIVARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.9 & 10 ARE
R/AT NO.50, P AND T LAYOUT
3RD CROSS, HORAMAVU POST
BENGALURU 560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UMESH B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.06.2022 PASSED IN OS No.277/2016 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT MULBAGAL, KOLAR
DISTRICT PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB
RFA No. 1717 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal, in O.S.No.277/2016. During the pendency of this appeal, the matter was referred to the Karnataka Mediation Centre, Bangalore.
2. Sri. Thimmegowda N, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Umesh B.N., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.9 and 10 submits that the matter is settled between the parties before the Karnataka Mediation Centre. We have perused the memorandum of settlement entered between the parties before the Karnataka Mediation Centre. The terms of settlement are in accordance with law and not opposed to public policy.
3. The terms of settlement are extracted herein for ready reference.
"I. The Appellant herein filed the above appeal questioning the order passed in O.S.No.277/2016 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mulbagal, Kolar District dated 30.06.2022 and decree the suit in the interest of justice and equity.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB RFA No. 1717 of 2022 HC-KAR II. Both the parties admit that there was an agreement of sale dated 29.07.2008, and on 15.01.2009 executed by respondent No.1 to 7 in favour of appellant in respect of the Property, bearing No.15, New Sy.No.147/2, measuring 2 acres including 12 guntas of kharab land situated at Kurubarahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, and the Respondent No.1 to 7 have received the advance sale consideration amount Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) from the appellant. But during subsistence above said agreements, the respondent No.1 to 7 have executed the sale deed on 08.03.2013 in favour of respondent No.8 and the respondent No.8 had inturn executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.9 & 10. Therefore, the appellant had filed suit being O.S.No.277/2016 for specific performance and as well as seeking declaration that the above sale deeds are null and void and not binding on the appellant. The respondent No.1 to 7 have not contested the suit and they have been set ex-parte. The respondent No.9 & 10 were Impleaded in the suit and they have contested the suit. After hearing the matter the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mulbagal, without granting decree for Specific Performance, decreed the suit in part, and directed the respondent No.1 to 7 to refund the earnest money of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) to the appellant with interest at rate of 10% P.A. from the date of the execution of the Agreement of sale etc., by its judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022.
Against the said judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. The respondent No.1 to 8 have not contested the appeal. The respondent No.9 & 10 contested the appeal.
III. The aforesaid appeal was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, the Appellant and the respondent No.9 and 10 along with their respective advocates were present to resolve their disputes and they have agreed and arrived the following terms and conditions -6- NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB RFA No. 1717 of 2022 HC-KAR
1. In view of this settlement, Respondents No.9 & 10 have agreed to allot five sites in favour of the appellant in the said layout formed in the suit schedule property. The said site numbers, measurements and with boundaries are as stated below:
a. The property bearing site No.12 formed out of Sy.No.15, New Sy.No.147/2, Hanumanahalli Village Panchayath E-Katha No.151900902001120140 measuring East to West 14.0208 Mts. i.e. 46 Ft. and North to South 9.144 Mts i.e. 30 Ft. totally measuring 128.21 Sq.mts. i.e. 1380 sq.Ft. situated at Kurubarahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, bounded on East by : Road West by : Sy.No.142, North by : Three Meter Road South by: Site No.11 b. The property bearing site No.13 formed out of Sy.No.15, New Sy.No.147/2, Hanumanahalli Village Panchayath E-Katha No.151900902001120141 measuring East to West 13.716mts i.e. 45 ft and North to south 9.4488 Mtr i.e. 31 ft. totally measuring 129.60 sq.mts i.e. 1395 sq.ft. situated at Kurubarahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, bounded on East by : Road, West by : Sy.No.142 North by : Site No.14 South by : Three meter Road.
c. The property bearing site No.16 formed out of Sy.No.15, New Sy.No.147/2, Hanumanahalli Village Panchayath E-Katha No.151900902001120145 measuring East to West: 12.192 mts. i.e. 40 ft. and North to south 13.4112 mts. i.e. 44 totally -7- NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB RFA No. 1717 of 2022 HC-KAR measuring 163.51 sq.mts. 1760 sq.ft. situated at Kurubarahalli village, AvaniHobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, bounded on East by : Site No.23 West by : Road North by : Site No.15 South by : Three meter Road.
d. The property bearing site No.17 formed out of Sy.No.15, New Sy.No.147/2, Hanumanahalli Village Panchayath E-Katha No.151900902001120176 measuring East to West :12.19 mts i.e. 40ft and North to south 13.84 mts. i.e. 45 ft. totally measuringsq.mts. i.e. 1800 sq. ft. situated at Kurubarahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, bounded on East by : Site No.22 West by : Road North by :Three meters Road South by : Site No.18 e. The property bearing site No.31 formed out of Sy.No.15, New Sy.No.147/2, Hanumanahalli Village Panchayath E-Katha No.151900902001120163 measuring East to West: 18.8976 mts. i.e. 62 ft. and North to south: 9.144 mts. i.e. 30ft. totally measuring 172.80 sq. mts.1860 sq.ft. situated at Kurubarahalli village, Avani Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District, bounded on East by : Road West by : Site No.30 North by : Site No.32 South by : Road.
2. That the above said properties stand in the name of Respondent No.9 &10 in the records of Hanumanahalli village panchayath and the e-katha and tax paid receipts all stand in the name of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB RFA No. 1717 of 2022 HC-KAR respondent No.9 & 10. In lieu of the allotment of the above said five sites, the appellant has no right or claim over the remaining portion of the suit schedule property. The appellant acknowledges the same.
3. That the respondent No.9 & 10 have now agreed to execute the necessary sale deeds in respect of the above said five sites as referred in Para 1(a) to Para 1(e), whenever the appellant seeks for execution of the sale deeds, failing which the appellant is at liberty to get the sale deeds executed by due process of law. Any defects in title or measurement of the said five sites, wouldentitle the Appellant to reopen the appeal and proceed in the present case for specific performance against the Respondent No.9 & 10 and enforce the above said agreements.
4. In view of this settlement the respondent No.9 & 10 further agreed that they or their legal heir will not interfere with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said five sites as mentioned in the Para 1(a) to Para 1(e) in this settlement.
5. The appellant has agreed that he will not interfere with the 9th and 10th respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the remaining portion of the suit schedule property.
6. It is further agreed between the parties that the appellant is entitled for decree as prayed for in respect of five sites as described in Para 1(a) to Para 1(e) as referred above.
7. Both parties state that apart from the above they have no claims in whatsoever nature against each other either in future.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:44421-DB RFA No. 1717 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. The parties further state that there has been no collusion or force, fraud or any undue influence by any of the parties to enter into this compromise in the aforesaid manner.
IV. In view of the aforesaid agreement, both the parties pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to decree the appeal as stated above, in the interest of justice and equity in terms of the aforesaid agreement. V. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the appellant prays for refund of the court fee."
4. In view of the aforesaid settlement, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the memorandum of settlement. Registry shall draw the decree.
5. The memo dated 03.11.2025 filed by the appellant is placed on record.
6. Registry shall refund the eligible Court fee after following proper procedure on proper identification.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9