Karnataka High Court
Dr Vimala vs Sri B K Srisha on 30 August, 2023
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:31090
RFA No. 769 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 769 OF 2012 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DR VIMALA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
D/O SRI A MUNISWAMY
(WRONGLY MENTIONED AS
D/O DR SESHAGIRI RAO IN THE PLAINT)
R/O F-3, 1ST FLOOR,
"SUKHASHRAYA APARTMENTS", NO. 18,
PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD,
SHANKARAPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 004
2. SRI SOMANATH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE SHANKARANARAYANA RAO
R/O F-3, 1ST FLOOR,
Digitally "SUKHASHRAYA APARTMENTS"
signed by
MALATESH NO. 18, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD,
KC
SHANKARAPURAM,
Location:
HIGH BANGALORE- 04
COURT OF ...APPELLANTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. K.C.SHANTAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B K SRISHA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE B S KESHAVA IYENGAR,
R/O APARTMENT NO. 1,
2ND FLOOR,R/O F-3, 1ST FLOOR,
" SUKHASHRAYA APARTMENTS", NO. 18,
PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:31090
RFA No. 769 of 2012
BANGALORE- 04
2. SMT TARA KESHAVA IYENGAR
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
W/O LATE B S KESHAVA IYENGAR
R/O F-3, 1ST FLOOR,
"SUKHASHRAY APARTMENTS"NO. 18,
PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD,
SHANKARAPURAM,
BANGALORE- 04
3. SMT JAYANTHI SATYANARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O B K SATYANARAYAN
4. SMT RAJASHREE P VARADAN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O P VARADAN
5. SMT MANGALA V SIRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O VENKATESH SRINIVASAN
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE
STATED TO BE R/O APARTMENT NO. 4,
2ND FLOOR,"SUKHASHRAYA APARTMENTS"
NO. 18, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD,
SHANKARAPURAM, BANGALORE- 04
6. M/S BANNA DEVELOPERS (PVT) LTD
NO. 65/1, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST EXTENSION,
BANGALORE- 20.
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L S CHIKKANNAGOUDAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. SHYAM KOUNDINYA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 ; R1, R4 AND R5
ARE SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:31090
RFA No. 769 of 2012
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED16.02.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.16328/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Memo filed by the appellant.
Memo reads as under:
"That in the above Appeal, the Appellant has
challenged the Judgment and Decree dated 16.02.2012 in
O.S. Number 16328/2004 passed by the Learned City
Civil Judge Court at Mayo Hall, Bangalore. The subject
mentioned appeal is pending before this Hon'ble Court. It
was last listed on 15.06.2021. In the meanwhile, the 1st
Appellant has arrived at a compromise with the
Respondents wherein the 1st Appellant has agreed to
clear all the outstanding dues qua the suit schedule
property. The said compromise is final and the
Respondents has been executed the Sale Deed on appeal
21.08.2023. As such, the Appellant wants to withdraw the
above said
2) The 1ST Appellant states that the 2nd Appellant is
only a power agent of the 1ST Appellant and he has been
impleaded as the 2nd Appellant as a power agent of the
1ST Appellant. He has no separate interest in the
claim/case. The power of attorney executed in favour of
the 1ST Appellant has been cancelled and the same was
NC: 2023:KHC:31090
RFA No. 769 of 2012
informed to the 2nd Appellant vide lawyers notice
dt.08.08.2019 and public notice was also given (true
copies enclosed herewith). The 1ST Appellant also states
that she is the sole person who can make the above
decision as she has withdrawn the power of attorney
granted to Sri Somanath, who is the 2nd Appellant in this
Regular First Appeal being R.F.A. 769/2012 and the said
power of attorney is now null and void has no force or
effect and the 1ST Appellant is absolved of any liability
arising out of the actions of the 2nd Appellant.
3) The 1ST Appellant states that, except this Appeal,
no other case is pending between the parties to this
Appeal. If any case is pending, the 1ST Appellant agrees to
withdraw the same at her own cost or the same can be
closed without any reference to the 1ST Appellant by the
parties to this Appeal by placing reliance on this memo.
The 1st Appellant also undertakes not to institute any
fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter which is
also the subject matter of this First Appeal. If any
damage is caused to the Respondents, the 1ST Appellant
will indemnify them.
4) It is also brought to the notice of this Hon'ble
Court that the 2 Respondent is no more. She passed
away on 22.02.2021 and a copy of the death certificate
registered in B.B.M.P. record 803162/B/D/2021/016156 is
enclosed.
5) The Respondents was executed the Sale Deed of
the Suit Scheduled Property on the Twenty-First Day of
August Two-Thousand and Twenty Three, 21.08.2023
NC: 2023:KHC:31090
RFA No. 769 of 2012
recorded in registered Document Number CMP-1-03829-
2023-24 and the same has been produced herewith.
It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble court may
record this memo and the appeal may kindly be dismissed
as withdrawn in the interest of justice."
In view of the memo, appeal is dismissed as
withdrawn.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HB
