Sri Jayakrishna vs Sri K N Ashok
2022 Latest Caselaw 10584 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

           R. F. A. NO.1690 OF 2011 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JAYAKRISHNA
S/O HALERANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO. 891, SRI. RANGA, 3RD CROSS,
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE- 560 040.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B T INDU SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SRI K N ASHOK
     S/O Y K NARAYANA SHETTY
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     R/AT NO. 2030, 1ST MAIN,
     M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA,
     BANGALORE-560 040.

2.   SMT. ANITHA R
     W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA H.C.
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     R/AT No.2030, 1ST MAIN ROAD
     M.C.R. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA
     BANGALORE - 560 040.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H B UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R
    SRI. B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                               2



     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2011
PASSED IN O.S.7213/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE 42ND
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
(CCH-43), PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE
PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES.

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


                           JUDGMENT

The appellant and respondent No.2 filed a joint

memo stating that respondent No.1 filed the suit for

permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the

schedule property to restrain the appellant from

putting up of staircase, remove the stair case and re-

build the compound wall and to pay the damages.

Said suit came to be decreed vide judgment and

decree dated 11.04.2011. The defendant aggrieved

by the judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid

suit, filed this appeal.

2. During the pendency of appeal, respondent

No.1 sold the suit schedule property in favour of

respondent No.2 under registered sale deed dated

11.02.2019. Respondent No.2 filed an application

under Order XXII Rule 10 r/w Order I Rule 10 and

Section 151 of CPC to come on record as assignee of

respondent No.1. The said application came to be

allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021.

The appellant and respondent No.2 have resolved the

dispute. As such, respondent No.2 has no objection

for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment

and decree passed by the Trial Court in the aforesaid

suit, without there being any cost and the appeal may

be allowed.

3. Memo is placed on record.

4. As respondent No.1 has sold the suit property

in favour of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 will

step into the shoes of respondent No.1. Hence,

presence of respondent No.1 is not necessary for

consideration of joint memo. Accordingly, the appeal

is disposed of, in terms of the joint memo.

SD/-

JUDGE

RD