Amruthappa vs Vaijinath
2022 Latest Caselaw 4720 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                      BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

           R. S. A. NO.198 OF 2007 (MON)

BETWEEN:

AMRUTHAPPA,
S/O SIDDAPPA LAKKA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O MANDAKNALLI VILLAGE,
BIDAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 226.
                                      ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C PATIL,ADVOCATE)

AND:

VAIJINATH,
S/O REVANAPPA GOURSHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O MANDAKNALLI VILLAGE,
BIDAR TALUK & DISTRICT - 585 226.
                                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.11.10.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.14/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
                            2




AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DTD.24.7.2004 PASSED IN O.S.NO.213/1998 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN), BIDAR.

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

                      JUDGMENT

The appellant and power of attorney holder of

respondent is present before the Court. Learned

counsel for the parties filed joint memo stating that

parties have settled the matter and entered into

compromise and appellant has agreed to pay a sum of

Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand

Eight Hundred only) as full and final settlement of the

dispute with the respondent within two months from

today. The respondent has agreed to receive the said

amount. In terms of compromise, appellant issued

cheque bearing No.772443, drawn on Canara Bank for

Rs.2,12,800/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand

Eight Hundred only) dated 01.05.2022 in favour of

respondent. The counsel for respondent received the

aforesaid cheque and he acknowledges the receipt of

the same. The respondent agreed that he has no

claim over the mortgage property and parties are at

liberty to revoke the mortgage deed. The respondent

has no objection for the revocation of mortgage

property subject to realization of aforesaid cheque,

failing which, there shall be charge over the property

and respondent is entitle to enforce the decree.

2. Joint memo is placed on record.

3. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of in

terms of joint memo. In view of the settlement

between the parties. Registry is directed to refund

the Court Fee, in favour of appellant as per Section 66

of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation, Act.

SD/-

JUDGE

GRD