Karnataka High Court
Sri Chiknarayana vs Sri. Shivashankaraiah on 10 January, 2022
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
RFA No.343 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.CHIKNARAYANA
S/O CHIKAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
2. SMT.GEETHA
W/O CHIKANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.214,
1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS,
BEML LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-79. ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.ARUN A.GADAG, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.1,
SRI.VIJAY KUMAR BHAT A., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
NO.2)
AND:
SRI.SHIVASHANKARAIAH
S/O LATE HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT NO.214, 1ST FLOOR,
10TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU -79. ..RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA C., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER
41 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.01.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.2875/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-19, BANGALORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT AND DELIVER
VACANT POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In view of the pandemic-Covid-19, notification
dated 04.01.2022 and Standard Operating Procedure
issued by the High Court of Karnataka and order passed
in W.P.No.6435/2020, both the parties and their
respective counsel appeared through VC.
2. Appellants 1 and 2 by name Chikanarayana and
Geetha and respondent -Shivashankaraiah, S/o
Huchappa, present through VC from the Chambers of
Sri.Arun A Gadag, Advocate for appellant No.1, Sri.Vijay
Kumar Bhat A., Advocate for appellant No.2 is also
present through VC and Sri.Raghavendra C., learned
counsel for respondent-caveator is present through VC
and identified their respective parties.
3. Sri.Vijay Kumar Bhat A., learned counsel stated
that though he has not signed the compromise petition,
he has no objection for parties entering into compromise
and he has already given NOC to learned counsel
Sri.Arun A Gadag and he can represent both the
appellants/parties and would file a memo in this regard
and same may be accepted. Learned counsel shall send
memo through e-mail today itself to the Registry of this
Court.
4. The application/memorandum of compromise
petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is filed by the
parties. The contents of the compromise petition is read
over and explained to both the appellants and
respondent both in English and Kannada languages
known to them. They admit that said compromise is
entered by them and there is no pressure, coercion,
undue influence or threat on them by anybody and they
admit the contents of compromise petition as true and
correct and identified their signatures through VC.
Learned counsel for the respective parties identified their
respective parties and admit that the parties have
entered into compromise as per the terms filed.
5. Both the parties appellants 1 and 2 who
appeared along with their counsel through video
conference handed over keys of the suit schedule
property i.e., house to the respondent-Shivashankaraiah
who was the plaintiff before the trial court in the
chambers of appellants counsel as evident from VC.
6. It is also stated that appellant No.2 is the
daughter and appellant No.1 is the son-in-law of
respondent. Respondent also stated and shown in VC
that he has received keys of the suit schedule premises.
I am satisfied that the compromise is free,
voluntary and lawful one and not opposed to any public
policy. Therefore the said application filed under Order
XXIII Rule 3 CPC is accepted and allowed.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise.
Office to draw decree accordingly. The compromise
petition shall be part and parcel of decree.
7. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
8. The memo filed by learned counsel Sri.Vijay
Kumar Bhat shall be placed on record.
9. In view of the disposal of the main appeal,
I.A.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and
accordingly it stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBN
