Pramod Ranjan vs Smt Shakuntala V Hegde
2022 Latest Caselaw 2899 Kant

                         1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

            RFA. NO.1349 OF 2013 (RES)

BETWEEN:
1.     PRAMOD RANJAN
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       S/O G.K.RANJAN,
       M/s. CORAMANDA SEA FOODS
       (PVT.) LTD., APARTMENT 1-B,
       NO.9, BINNY ROAD, POES GARDEN,
       CHENNAI-86.

2.     ARUN ACHAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
       S/O B.A.KAVERAPPA,
       R/AT NO.19,
       LALITH MAHAL ROAD,
       MYSORE-570001.                ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT.LATHA SHETTY FOR
    SRI. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY K,
    SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

AND:

1.     SMT. SHAKUNTALA V HEGDE
       W/O S.VARADARAJ HEGDE,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
       GUDDEGUTHU HOUSE,
       JEPPINA MOGARU VILLAGE,
       KANKANADI POST,
       MANGALORE-575001.

2.     S.VARADARAJ HEGDE
       S/O LATE S. GOPALA HEGDE,
                          2


     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     NEAR RAJESHWARI MAHADWARA,
     UKKUDA ROAD,
     MADIKERI-571201.

3.   BOLLERA M PRABHAKARA
     S/O MACHIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
     SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.
     SMT.B.P.RENU
     W/O LATE BOLLERA M PRABHAKARA,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     K.NIDUGANE VILLAGE,
     MADIKERI TALUK-571201.    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.A. AJITH SHEETY FOR SRI. A. ANANDA
    SHETTY FOR R1; R2-NOTICE IS HELD
    SUFFICIENT V/O/D 21.01.2014 AND
    R3-NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT
    V/O/D 23.03.2015)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.04.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.38/2007 ON THE FILE
OF SENIOR CIVIL      JUDGE,  MADIKERI, PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND MESNE
PROFITS.

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

                 JUDGMENT

Parties have filed a memo of compromise

which is filed on 24.01.2022. The same is signed by

the appellant Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1

and 2. The signatures of the appellants and

respondent No.1 are duly identified by the learned

counsel for the respondents. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2

and Respondent No.1 are present by way of video

conferencing. They are duly identified by their

respective advocates. Respondents No.1 and her

advocate Sri. Ajith Shetty (KAR 1964/2001)

submits that respondent No.2 is none other than

husband of respondent No.1 and he has duly

executed the compromise petition but he was

unable to be present either by way of video

conferencing or physically as he is traveling and he

is not a contesting party.

Their submission is placed on record.

Compromise petition is taken on record.

Appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise.

Office to draw modified decree, accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JS/-