Radha Srikanth vs Chinnaswamy Raju P
2021 Latest Caselaw 5685 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

               R.F.A. No. 1736 OF 2018
BETWEEN:

1. RADHA SRIKANTH
W/O H.SRIKANTH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

2. H.SRIKANTH
S/O LATE SATHYAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
SHOWN AS RESIDING AT NO.9,
3RD MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM
BENGALURU-560 020.
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI MANIAN K.B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHINNASWAMY RAJU P.
S/O LATE CHANGAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O NO.9, 6TH TEMPLE STREET
15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003/
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
                                           RFA.No.1736/2018

                           2


     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96, CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2018 PASSED IN O.S.
NO.1396/2016 ON THE FILE OF 35TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY IN DECREEING THE
MONEY SUIT IN A SUM OF Rs.2,90,000/- TOGETHER WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. ON THE AFORESAID
SUM FROM 2.2.2013 TO 2.2.2016 AND 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF SUIT TILL RECOERY WITH COSTS.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

Learned counsel from both side and appellant no.2

and the respondent as identified by their respective

counsels are physically present in the Court. Both the

parties through their advocates have filed a joint memo

reporting compromise.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that

appellant no.1 has also subscribed her signature to the

said joint memo and has executed the said memo in his

presence. But however, due to some medical reasons,

she could not be physically present in the Court. He RFA.No.1736/2018

further submits that she has agreed to the terms of the

compromise as mentioned in the joint memo.

3. Heard the submissions of the parties from both

side who support the contents of the joint memo filed

today. Learned counsels for the parties also reiterate

the same submission. However, they submit that

setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree

does not arise since the said decree merges into the

compromise entered into between the parties in this

appeal.

4. As per the terms of the joint memo, the

appellants are shown to have paid a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) by Demand Draft

bearing No.899830 dated 06.12.2021 issued by Canara

Bank, Kumara Park West Branch, Bengaluru, in the

name of the respondent as full and final settlement of all RFA.No.1736/2018

claims by the respondent against the appellants which is

the subject matter of the suit.

5. In view of the above, the appeal is taken as

compromised and settled between the parties on the

basis of the joint memo mentioned above and the

appeal stands disposed of as settled between the

parties. In view of the same, entitlement of the

appellants for refund of the entire Court Fee is to be in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE vgh*