Karnataka High Court
Sri T V Anand vs Sri T C Niranjan Shetty on 19 January, 2022
Bench: N S Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A. No.2534/2018(DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T.V.ANAND,
S/O T.V.VENKATARAMANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT THAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
PIN CODE:562 130. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. T.C.NIRANJAN SHETTY,
S/O T.M.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT THAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
RAJABEEDHI,
OPP.SHUBHA PRINTERS,
THAVAREKERE HOBLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 562 130.
2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNAIAH,
S/O MUDDUMALAIAH 74 YEARS,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT No.18, KSRTC LAYOUT,
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU TALUK - 562 123.
2
3. SRI. BASAVARAJ,
S/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT No.18, KSRTC LAYOUT,
KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU TALUK - 562 123.
4. SRI. T.G.NARASIMHA MURTHY,
S/O T.GANGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT THAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
THAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 130.
5. SMT. R.LEELAVATHI,
W/O T.G.NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT THAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
THAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 130.
6. SRI. T.K.MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE T.S.KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
THAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
THAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK,
BANGALORE - 562 130 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.SRIKANTH, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI. K.RAGHAVENDRA, ADV., FOR R-4 & R-5;
SRI. T.R.NAGABHUSHANA, ADV., FOR R-6)
3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC
1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
14.09.2018 PASSED IN R.A. No.25/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.02.2018 PASSED IN
O.S. No.85/2014 (OLD No.451/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This second appeal is by defendant No.3.
2. A suit was filed by respondent No.1 herein seeking
for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of
the land bearing Sy.No.57/5 measuring 14 guntas,
situated at Tavarekere village.
3. After contest, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent
No.1 herein was decreed and he was declared to be the
owner of the suit schedule property. The sale deed dated
06.10.2006 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour
of defendant No.3 (who is the appellant herein) and the
subsequent sale deed by defendant No.3 in favour of
defendant Nos.4 and 5, were held to be not binding on
the rights of the plaintiffs.
4. This decree of declaration has been confirmed in
appeal and hence, this second appeal by defendant No.3.
5. In this second appeal, a compromise petition has
been filed, in which it is stated that the plaintiff concedes
the ownership of defendant No.3, in lieu of which he has
been paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- [Fifty lakhs] by means
of two cheques, each for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-
[Twenty-five lakhs].
6. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/-
[One Crore Seventy-five Lakhs] is being paid to respondent
No.6 herein, who is stated to be the beneficiary of the
agreement of sale dated 29.05.2020 executed by the
plaintiff.
7. Thus, as per the compromise, the claim of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property stands
withdrawn on his receiving a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-
[Fifty lakhs] and the further claim of respondent No.6,
who was claiming as an agreement holder under him, is
also being withdrawn on his receiving a sum of
Rs.1,75,00,000/- [One Crore Seventy-five Lakhs].
8. A memorandum of compromise is also filed on
17.01.2022 by the learned counsel for the respondents,
which contains the signature of the plaintiff, stating that
the plaintiff has settled the dispute with the appellant
and the suit as against defendant Nos.1 and 2 would not
survive for consideration.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1,
Sri.S.Srikanth, also submits that since respondent No.1-
plaintiff has given up his claim in respect of the entire
suit schedule property by receiving a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- [Fifty lakhs], the suit itself may be
dismissed as withdrawn and consequently, the decrees
be reversed.
10. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is present through
video conferencing and he is identified by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1.
11. The receipt of Rs.1,75,00,000/- [One Crore Seventy-
five Lakhs] by respondent No.6 is also acknowledged by
respondent No.6, who is present through video
conferencing and is identified by the learned counsel.
12. The appellant, who was defendant No.3, is also
present through video conferencing and he is identified
by the learned counsel for the appellant.
13. In view of the fact that the plaintiff is giving up his
claim in respect of the entire suit schedule property and
concedes title in favour of defendant No.3, who has
already conveyed the property to defendant Nos.4 and 5,
the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 is dismissed as
withdrawn.
14. The receipt of a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- by
respondent No.1, and a sum of Rs.1,75,00,000/- by
respondent No.6 are taken on record.
15. In view of the memorandum of compromise as well
as the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent
No.1 made herein above, the suit filed by the plaintiff
seeking for declaration is dismissed.
16. Consequently, a decree shall also be prepared in
terms of the above order.
17. In view of the dismissal of the suit, the present
second appeal shall stand disposed of as having
become unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT:SN
