J Preethi vs Y R Mahadev
2023 Latest Caselaw 10179 Kant

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10179 Kant
Judgement Date : 11 December, 2023

Karnataka High Court

J Preethi vs Y R Mahadev on 11 December, 2023

Author: V. Srishananda

Bench: V. Srishananda

                                          -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC:44859
                                                        RFA No. 525 of 2008




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                       BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
                   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.525 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)
              BETWEEN:

              1.    J. PREETHI
                    D/O R. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN
                    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
                    R/AT. NO.1159, 10 'B' CROSS
                    NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA
                    BANGALORE-64.
                                                               ...APPELLANT

Digitally     (BY SRI. J. PRASHANTH, ADV.,)
signed by R
MANJUNATHA    AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF            1.     Y.R. MAHADEV
KARNATAKA            S/O LATE Y.R. RAMADAS NAIDU
                     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                     SINCE DEAD REP BY LRS.

              1(a) SRI. KESHAVAMURTHY
                   S/O LATE Y.R. MAHADEV
                   AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
                   R/AT. NO.307, 1ST MAIN
                   1ST CROSS, UPKAR RESIDENCY
                   ULLAL, BANGALORE-560091.

              1(b) SMT. M. HEMALATHA
                   D/O LATE Y.R. MAHADEV
                   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
                   R/AT. NO.79, RICHMOND ROAD
                   BANGALORE-560020.

                     R1(a) AND R1(b) IMPLEADED V.C.O.
                     DATED 11.07.2018
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2023:KHC:44859
                                          RFA No. 525 of 2008




2.   DR. H.K. YASHODHARA
     SINCE DIED ON 09.08.2012
     REP BY R3 AND R4.

3.   R. NIVEDITHA
     D/O LATE R. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.353, 14TH CROSS
     2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
     BANGALORE-38.

4.   DR. R. MANJUNATH
     S/O LATE R. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.353, 14TH CROSS
     2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR
     BANGALORE-38.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.B.S. MANIAN & SRI. GANESH &
    SRI. H. KEMPANNA, ADVS., FOR R1 (a & b)
    SRI. S. SIDDAPPA, ADV., FOR R3 & R4
    SMT. SRUTI CHANGANTI &
    SRI. DEVARAJ H.K. ADVS., FOR R4
V/O DTD: 25.03.2019 R3 & R4 ARE TREATED AS
LRS OF DECEASED R2)


     THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 U/O 41 RULE 1 & 2 OF THE
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 6.3.08 PASSED
IN OS NO.1909/05 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR DECLARATION AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.


     THIS     APPEAL,     COMING     ON      FOR    REPORTING
SETTLEMENT,    THIS     DAY,   THE   COURT    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
                                 -3-
                                               NC: 2023:KHC:44859
                                              RFA No. 525 of 2008




                           JUDGMENT

A memo has been filed by the appellant. The memo

reads as under:

"The Appellant prays this Hon'ble Court be pleased to delete Respondents 3 and 4 in the above appeal in the interest of justice and equity."

2. In view of the memo, appeal against respondent

Nos.3 and 4 who are the legal representatives of

Dr.Yashodhara as well who is the 2nd defendant, has been

dismissed.

3. Appellant and respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) filed

a compromise petition signed by them with their

respective counsels. The contents of the compromise

petition read out to the parties in Kannada language.

4. Parties agree that the terms of the compromise

depict the true terms of settlement and there is no force,

NC: 2023:KHC:44859

undue influence or coercion in reaching out the terms of

compromise petition.

5. As such, there is no impediment for this Court to

accept the compromise and dispose of the appeal in terms

of the compromise petition. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal stands disposed of in terms

of the compromise petition

(ii) Office is directed to pass a modified

decree in terms of compromise petition,

appending a copy of the compromise petition as

part of the decree.