Mrs Rathna vs Mrs Girija
2022 Latest Caselaw 366 Kant

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

             R.S.A.No.2209 OF 2017(POS)

BETWEEN:

MRS.RATHNA,
D/O. LATE NARAYANA MOOLYA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT PAIRPUNI HOUSE,
PADUVANNOR VILLAGE,
P.O. PADUVANNOOR,
PUTTUR TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT.       ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV.)

AND:

1.     MRS.GIRIJA,
       W/O. LATE RAMA BHAT,
       AGE: MAJOR;

       SINCE DECEASED RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ARE
       TREATED AS L.Rs. OF RESPONDENT NO.1
       VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2021.

2.     MADHAVA BHAT,
       S/O.RAMA BHAT,
       AGE: MAJOR;

3.     SRIPATHI,
       S/O.RAMA BHAT,
       AGE: MAJOR;
                          2



4.   SHRINIVAS,
     S/O.RAMA BHAT,
     AGE: MAJOR;

5.   SADASHIVA,
     S/O.RAMA BHAT,
     AGE: MAJOR;

6.   KASHYAMMA,
     D/O RAMA BHAT,
     AGE MAJOR,

7.   KAMALAVATHI,
     D/O.RAMA BHAT,
     AGE: MAJOR;

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT:
     PAIRUPUNI HOUSE,
     PADUVANNUR VILLAGE & POST,
     PUTTUR TALUK,
     D.K. DISTRICT - 574 201.     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI DHANANJAY V.JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
 SMT.KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADV. FOR R2 TO R7)


     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.07.2017
PASSED IN R.A.No.71/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., PUTTUR, D.K.,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2008 PASSED IN O.S.No.12/2001
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.),
PUTTUR, D.K.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                             3




                       JUDGMENT

1. After arguing the matter for some time, learned

counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the

appellant, submits that the appellant undertakes to hand

over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to

the respondents on or before 10.07.2022 and thereby

abide by the impugned decrees.

2. The respondents, in consideration of the appellant's

undertaking to deliver vacation possession of the suit

schedule property, have agreed to pay a sum of

`2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) to the appellant.

They submit that a sum of `2,00,000/- will be paid to the

appellant when the appellant hands over possession to

them either before the Executing Court or outside the

Court.

3. In view of the said submissions, this second appeal

is dismissed, subject however to the following:

a. The appellant shall hand over vacant

possession of the suit schedule property to

the respondents on or before 10.07.2022.

b. The respondents shall pay a sum of

`2,00,000/- to the appellant as on the date,

the appellant hands over vacant possession of

the suit schedule property to them either

before the Executing Court or outside the

Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PKS