Karnataka High Court
Sri Seetharam Shetty vs Smt Nalini R Shetty on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
RSA No. 790 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 790 OF 2022 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI SEETHARAM SHETTY
S/O LATE THYAMPANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/A BOLLOTTU MANE
KELLAPUTTIGE VILLAGE
DAREGUDDE POST
MANGALURU TALUK-574 107.
...APPELLANT
[BY SRI UDAYA SHANKAR RAI B., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
SMT. NALINI R SHETTY
W/O SRI RAGHU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/A 'GURUPRASAD'
MULLAKAADU VILLAGE
KARKALA TALUK - 628 005.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
VEENA KUMARI B
Location: High [BY SRI G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADV., FOR C/RESPONDENT]
Court of Karnataka
THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.03.2022 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.37/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., MANGALURU, D.K., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1047/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC., MANGALURU, D.K.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
RSA No. 790 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated
29.03.2022 passed in R.A.No.37/2019 by III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge & JMFC., Mangaluru, D.K., by allowing appeal and set
aside judgment and decree dated 10.02.2019 passed in
O.S.No.1047/2015 by IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC., Mangaluru,
D.K., this appeal is filed.
2. This instant appeal arises out of decree in which
plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction restraining
defendants from dispossessing plaintiff from suit premises
except in accordance with law. While defendant had filed
counter claim against plaintiff seeking direction to plaintiff to
vacate and surrender possession of premises to defendants and
to pay mesne profits.
3. Plaintiff's suit came to be dismissed by trial Court,
while counter claim was allowed with costs directing plaintiff to
deliver vacant possession of premises to defendant within 60
days and to pay mesne profits at `600/-per day. In
appeal/cross-appeal filed by parties, first appellate Court
dismissed appeal filed by plaintiff and allowed cross-appeal of
RSA No. 790 of 2022
defendant and enhanced mesne profits to `1000/- per day and
directed plaintiff to deliver vacant possession within 45 days.
Challenging same, original plaintiff is in appeal.
4. After negotiation with defendant, learned counsel for
plaintiff submits that there is settlement arrived at between
parties, wherein defendant agreed to permit plaintiff to occupy
suit premises till 30.06.2023 subject to plaintiff paying
damages at `1000/- per day as directed by first appellate Court
and plaintiff's undertaking not to seek extension of CL-9 licence
in respect of suit premises for next excise year and agreeing to
clear all dues towards rent and mesne profits within two
months from today. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit undertaking
containing above terms to said effect.
5. In view of settlement arrived at between parties and
affidavit undertaking being filed by appellant/plaintiff, appeal is
disposed of in terms of settlement. Appellant is permitted to
continue to occupy premises subject to following conditions:
• Plaintiff shall clear all arrears of rents and
mesne profits as per judgment and decree of
first appellate Court within two months from
today.
RSA No. 790 of 2022
• He shall continue to pay damages at `1000/-
per day till date of delivery of vacant
possession or 30.06.2023, whichever is
earlier.
• He shall not seek for extension of CL-9 licence
in respect of suit premises in question and
deliver vacant possession without driving
respondent to file execution petition.
In above terms, appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Psg*
