Sri B M Renuka Prasad vs Sri B V Nagaraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 5067 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5067 Kant
Judgement Date : 21 March, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Sri B M Renuka Prasad vs Sri B V Nagaraj on 21 March, 2022

Bench: R. Nataraj

                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                       BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1394 OF 2014 (SP)


BETWEEN:


1.     SRI.B.M.RENUKA PRASAD,
       S/O LATE B.C.MALLANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

2.     SRI.B.M.MANJUNATH,
       S/O LATE B.C.MALLANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

3.     SRI.B.M.SHIVANANDA,
       SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

3(a) SMT.SHASHIKALA T.R.,
     W/O LATE B.M.SHIVANANDA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     R/AT BETTHALASUR VILLAGE,
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
     BENGALURU - 562 157.

4.     SRI.B.M.NAGARAJ,
       S/O LATE B.C.MALLANNA,
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

5.     SMT.VANAJAKSHAMMA,
       W/O LATE B.M.CHANDRASHEKAR,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                           2




       ALL ARE R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE,
       JALA HOBLI,
       BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

6.     SMT.B.M.SUKANYA @ BABY,
       D/O LATE B.C.MALLANNA,
       W/O VIRUPAKSHA,
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
       R/AT MANJUNATH NAGAR,
       60 FEET ROAD, BATAWADI,
       TUMKUR.
                                       ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.P.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.B.V.NAGARAJ,
S/O LATE B.S.VISHWANATH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT BETTAHALASUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
                                     ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH M HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.T.SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 22.08.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.84/2013
ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2013 PASSED IN OS
NO.1216/2006 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., DEVANAHALLI.

     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                      3




                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the defendants in

O.S.No.1216/2006 challenging the concurrent finding of

facts recorded by both the Courts below, by which the suit

for specific performance was decreed.

2. This appeal was admitted on 09.09.2015 to

consider the following substantial questions of law:

"(i) Whether First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding recorded on issue No.5 by trial Court in negative and it is contrary to evidence available on record?

(ii) Whether First Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit for specific performance through trial Court has declined to exercise its discretion under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963??

3. The parties have arrived at a settlement and

filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. The terms of which reads as

follows:

"The appellants and the respondent submit as follows:

1. It is submitted that The Appellants above named have filed the above appeal challenging the correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 22.08.2014 one passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Devanahalli in RA No.84/2013, whereunder the learned First Appellate Judge has dismissed the appeal one filed by the Appellants herein by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2013 one passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli, in O.S. No.1216/2006, by which the suit one filed by the Respondent herein for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15.03.2003 came to be decreed.

2. It is submitted that the learned First Appellate Judge while dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellants herein has directed the Plaintiff/respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- including the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- as balance sale consideration. Accordingly the respondent herein has deposited the amount before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli by way of two Demand Drafts, which are as hereunder:

i. DD bearing NO.566868 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-

(One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on Bank of India dated 08.11.2011 in favour of Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli.

ii. DD bearing No.259739 for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-

(Eight Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) drawn on Bank

of India dated 07.11.2014 in favour of Senior Civil Judge Devanahalli.

3. It is submitted that at the intervention of well wishers, friends and relatives of the parties to the lis, the Appellants and Respondent in ordered to put an end to the litigation have agreed as hereunder:

i. The respondent herein being the Plaintiff at the Trial Court has no Objection in setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court dated 26.02.2013 in O.S. no.1216/2016 which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. NO.84/2013. The Respondent having gave up his in respect of the property in question have paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lakhs Only) by way of DD bearing No.567883 dated 21.02.2022 drawn on Bank of India in favour of the Respondent herein and the Respondent hereby acknowledges the same.

ii. The Appellants have no Objection to withdraw the entire amount under deposited before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli in O.S. No.1216/2006 or execution petition thereunder including the interest accrued thereon if any.

iii. The Respondent herein has no claim in respect of the subject property in any manner and that it shall be the property of the Appellants hence forth.

Wherefore the Appellants and the Respondent pray that this Hon'ble Court be please to dispose of the above

appeal in terms of the compromise entered in to by the parties and the Court Fee paid by the Appellants on the above appeal be ordered to be released in favour of the Appellant No.4 to meet the ends of justice."

4. It is seen from the compromise that the

plaintiff has accepted a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and is

ready to give up his claim for specific performance in

respect of the property in question. The parties are present

in person and they all admitted and acknowledged the

terms of the compromise.

5. The parties have affixed their signatures to the

order sheet of this Court in token of acceptance of the

terms of compromise.

6. Since the compromise is just and fair, the

same is accepted. Consequently, the impugned judgments

and decree passed in O.S.No.1216/2006 by the Court of