Karnataka High Court
M/S L.K.Trust vs Sri.V.Nagaraj on 29 March, 2022
Bench: G.Narendar, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2105/2016 (SP)
BETWEEN:
M/S L.K.TRUST,
NO.101, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-01
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
SRI K.L.SWAMY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI PRAKASH.M.H, ADV.)
AND:
SRI V.NAGARAJ,
S/O SRI VENKATESH,
SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY
HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
2. ROOPA.N
D/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
3. MYTHRI.N
D/O. LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
2
4. SAPNA.N
D/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
5. NITHYA.N
D/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
6. SMT. DINAMANI B.N
W/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
7. ARUN SAGAR.N
S/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
8. AMETH SAGAR.N
S/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
9. SMT. PADMA G.Y
W/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
10. AJIT SAGAR.N
S/O LATE. V.NAGARAJU,
AGE: MAJOR,
ALL ARE R/AT: NO.1263/4,
KHB COLONY, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 079.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, ADV. FOR R1 TO R10.)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:
16.09.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.4846/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
3
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR 'HEARING
ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION' THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsels filed into Court a petition under
Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads
as under:-
"MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION
UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
1. That the above appeal is filed by the appellant,
the plaintiff in O.S. No.4846/2007 before the
Court of XXI Addl. City Civil Judge at Bangalore
assailing the correctness of the judgment and
decree dated 16.09.2016. On the basis of an
agreement of sale dated: 24.07.2003, executed
by the deceased respondent herein, the
appellant has filed the suit seeking specific
performance of the said agreement.
2. It is submitted that by the order dated
25.04.2017, this Hon'ble Court has referred the
appeal for mediation to explore the possibility
of settlement. However, no settlement was
arrived. The respondent, Shri. V. Nagaraj died
on 07.05.2021 and subsequently, his legal
representatives have approached the appellant
and expressed their willingness to settle the
matter. After negotiations, the legal
representatives of the deceased Nagaraj have
offered to pay Rs.Two Crores Seventy Five
Lakhs (Rs.2,75,00,000) as full and final
settlement and the said proposal is accepted by
the appellant and accordingly, the present
compromise is being presented before this
Hon'ble Court.
3. The Respondents are making the payment
through a demand draft dated 16.03.2022,
bearing No.857288, drawn on UCO Bank,
Vijayanagar Branch, Bangalore in favour of the
appellant and the appellant having received the
said amount has acknowledged the same.
4. It is hereby stated by the parties that the issue
arouse between them pursuant to the sale
agreement dated 24.07.2003 is resolved
amicably as stated above. The respondents are
free to deal with the schedule property and the
appellant declare that it is having no right and
interest in respect of the same.
5. The appellant and the respondents submit that
the present compromise is voluntary and free
from threat, coercion or any kind of influences
of whatsoever nature.
6. Hence, the appellant and the respondents
herein humbly request this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to accept the compromise entered and
to dispose the appeal in terms this compromise
in the interest of justice and equity.
7. The respondents have no objection for refund
of court fee to the appellant as per law.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(K.S.Brijmohan) (Rathnamma.B.N.) (Roopa.N.)
Appellant Respondent No.1 Respondent No.2
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Mythri.N.) (Sapna.N.) (Nithya.N)
Respondent No.3 Respondent No.4 Respondent No.5
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Dinamani.B.N) (Arun Sagar.N.) (Ameth Sagar.N)
Respondent No.6 Respondent No.7 Respondent No.8
Sd/- Sd/-
(Padma.G.Y.) (Ajit Sagar.N)
Respondent No.9 Respondent No.10
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRAKASH M.H.) (M. ABDUL RAHIMAN)
ADV. FOR APPELLANT ADV. FOR RESP. NO.1 to 10"
3. It is submitted that the parties have
voluntarily and peacefully negotiated and amicably
resolved the issues and that the terms of the
settlement arrived at between the parties is
incorporated in the Memorandum of Compromise
petition and that the parties acting in terms of
compromise, have paid a sum of Rs.2,75,00,000/- (Two
Crores Seventy Five Lakhs) by way of demand draft
dated 16.03.2022 bearing No.857288 and drawn on
UCO Bank, Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru. The receipt
of which, the appellant admits. The demand draft is
handed over before the Court. In fact, all the parties
i.e. the signatories to the compromise petition were
present before the Court on the previous date of
hearing and have affixed their signatures to the order
sheet. Today, the appellant and respondents No.7 and
8 are present and are identified by their respective
counsels. In that view of the matter, the terms of the
compromise do not demonstrate any illegality nor are
the terms opposed to any public policy or law and there
being no bar to accept the compromise petition, the
same is accepted.
4. In that view of the matter, the compromise
petition is taken on record and is ordered accordingly.
5. The appeal stands disposed off in terms of
the compromise.
Office to draw-up a decree accordingly and
consider refund of permissible Court fee.
In view of disposal of the petition, I.As 1, 2 and 3
of 2022 do not survive for consideration and is
accordingly disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Chs
CT-HR
