Karnataka High Court

Sri.A.Munishamy Reddy vs M.Ramaiah on 27 November, 2023

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                        -1-
                                                   NC: 2023:KHC:42740
                                                   RFA No. 44 of 2016




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                     BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                   REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2016 (SP)

            BETWEEN:

                  SRI A.MUNISHAMY REDDY
                  S/O APPIREDDY,
                  AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                  R/O KARINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                  KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
                  KOLAR DISTRICT.
                                                         ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI VARADARAJAN M S., ADVOCATE)
            AND:

                  M.RAMAIAH
                  SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LRS

            1.    SMT. NAVITHA,
Digitally         D/O LAE NAGAMMA
signed by         AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
VANDANA S
Location:
HIGH        2.    SMT. MANJULA
COURT OF          D/O LATE NAGAMMA
KARNATAKA         AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

            3.    PAVITHRA
                  D/O LATE NAAMMA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
                  RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF
                  BELLAPURA VILLAGE, ABBENAHALLI POST,
                  MALUR TALUK - 562160

            4.    SRI. B.R. SRINIVAS
                  S/O AMAIAH
                  AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:42740
                                      RFA No. 44 of 2016




5.   SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA
     W/O B.R. SRINIVAS,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

6.   S. NETHRAVATHI
     D/O B.R. SRINIVAS,
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

7.   S .MAMATHA
     D/O B.R. SRINIVAS
     AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

8.   S. SHIVAKUMAR
     S/O B.R. SRINIVAS,
     AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

9.   S. PRASHANTH KUMAR
     S/O B.R. SRINIVAS,
     AGED ABOUT 14 YEAS
     MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER
     SRI. B.R. SRINIVAS - RESPONDENT NO.4

     RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE
     RESIDENTS OF BAVANANAHALLI
     VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALUR
     TALUK - 562160, KOLAR DISTRICT

10. KARNATAKA INDSRIAL AREA
    DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
    14/3, 2ND FLOOR,R.P. BUILDING,
    NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001,
    BY ITS SECRETARY
                                     ...RESPONDENTS
     (BY SRI M S HARINATH FOR R1-R3, ADV., SRI G.
BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV. FOR R4 TO R9 AND SRI P.V.
CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R10)

     RFA FILED U/S 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT &
DECREE DT. 24.11.2015 PASSED IN OS NO.42/2012 ON THE
FILE OF THE SR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MALUR PARTLY
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, ETC.,
                                -3-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:42740
                                            RFA No. 44 of 2016




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

                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment

and decree dated 24.11.2015 passed in OS No.42/2016 by the

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, whereby the said suit filed

by the appellant - plaintiff against the respondents - defendants

for specific performance and other reliefs in relation to suit

schedule immovable property, was decreed partly by the trial

Court, directing refund of advance amount of Rs.5,50,000/- in

favour of the appellant - plaintiff from the respondents -

defendants with interest at the rate of 9% PA from the date of

agreement till payment.

2. The parties have filed a compromise petition dated

20.11.2023, which reads as under:

"Compromise petition under order 23 rule 3 of the CPC

1. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.42/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur. He filed the said suit against M.Ramaiah now dead and represented by his LRs who are respondents 1 to 9.

2. Appellant filed the said suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement dated 16.11.2011 executed in his favour by the deceased defendant Ramaiah with respect to the suit schedule

NC: 2023:KHC:42740

property, which is described as Sy.no.63, extent 1=00 acre with standing eucalyptus trees, situate in Jakkasandra village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar district.

3. During the pendency of the suit, suit schedule property came to be acquired by defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 i.e., Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board and therefore appellant amended the plaint prayer column for a money decree in respect of the entire compensation amount.

4. Trial court dismissed the suit for specific performance while directing refund of the earnest money of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with interest thereon at 9% per annum vide judgment and decree dated 24.11.2015.

5. Appellant/ plaintiff has filed the above appeal challenging the said judgment and decree of the trial court in so far as his prayer for entire compensation amount is rejected.

6. Appellant and respondents have now amicably settled the matter by agreeing to apportion the compensation awarded by defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 towards acquiring the suit schedule property, the terms of which are as under:

i. Appellant is entitled to and shall receive from defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) from the compensation amount.

ii. Respondents 1 to 9 are entitled to and shall receive from defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 the rest of the compensation amount.

iii. Defendant no.8/ respondent no.10 shall be directed to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff and disbursement of balance compensation amount in favour of respondents 1 to 9.

NC: 2023:KHC:42740

7. Parties do hereby declare that they have entered into this compromise at the intervention of well wishers on either side and out of their own free will and volition, having realized that a protracted litigation is not in their interest.

8. Parties do hereby state and declare that there is no element of fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence, etc., in the matter of filing this compromise petition.

9. Both parties do hereby respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to accept this compromise petition and pass a decree in terms of this compromise petition and further direct respondent no.10 for disbursement of the compensation amount as stated above.

10. Court fee paid on the above appeal may be refunded to the appellant."

3. When the matter was posted on 20.11.2023, except

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3,

all parties and their respective counsel were present and

compromise petition having been filed, the following order was

passed:

ORDER

Joint Compromise Petition on behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 9 is filed.

The said Compromise Petition is signed by the appellant as well as respondent Nos.1 to 9 as well as learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 9.

NC: 2023:KHC:42740

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.5 to 9 are physically present and admit having signed the Compromise Petition and that the contents of the same are correct and proper. Respondent No.4 is stated to be physically present and sitting in the car parked in the car parking lot of this Court and is said to be unable to physically appear on account of his ill-health. However, respondent No.5 - Smt. Munirathnamma, who is none other than the wife of respondent No.4 states that the LTM of respondent No.4 has been duly affixed on the Compromise Petition. All parties state that they accept the terms and conditions of the compromise and they have understood its contents.