Karnataka High Court
Sri Sreenivas Reddy vs Sri K N Dayanandasagar on 28 November, 2023
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43025
RFA No. 1375 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1375 OF 2006 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SREENIVAS REDDY
S/O LATE K.N.SHYAMANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. SMT SAVITHRAMMA
W/O LATE KODANDARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SRI HEMANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE KODANDARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
4. MS ROOPA @ DEEPA
D/O LATE KODANDARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
Digitally
signed by R 5. SMT SAROJAMMA
MANJUNATHA
Location: D/O LATE K.N.SHYAMANNA REDDY
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OF
KARNATAKA
6. SMT SAVITHRAMMA
D/O LATE K.N.SHYAMANNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
APPELLANTS 1 TO 6
ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.32
PATEL SHAMANNA REDDY BUILDING,
KORAMANGALA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE- 560 095
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43025
RFA No. 1375 of 2006
7. SMT NIRMALA BEBI
D/O LATE K.N.SHYAMANNA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIR
7(a) SRI JANARDHANA REDDY
S/O LATE H.N.SHAMANNA REDDY
H/O NIRMALA BEBI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD
BEHIND DOCTOR LAYOUT
NAGANATHAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 100.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.S.KRISHNA FOR SRI D S JAYARAJ & SRI SANDESH,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SRI K N DAYANANDASAGAR
S/O K.M.NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.503, 8TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN ROAD
KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE -95
2. SMT SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE K.M.NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR
3. SRI K N SURENDRA REDDY
S/O LATE K.M.NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR,
4. SRI K N ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE K.M.NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR,
5. SMT K N GUNAVATHI
D/O LATE K.M.NARAYANA REDDY
MAJOR,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43025
RFA No. 1375 of 2006
R/AT NO.109, 17TH C MAIN
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE 560 095
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 23.06.2006 PASSED IN O.S.No.5299/1993 ON
THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE
(CCH.No.19) DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Parties are present. Appellants are represented by Sri
D.S.Jayaraj, advocate. On behalf of Sri D.S.Jayaraj, Sri
B.S.Krishna, learned counsel is present.
2. Sri Hemanth Kumar- appellant No.3 is present. He is the
general power of attorney holder of appellant Nos.2,4,5,6 and
7(a). Kavya K.S. is the power of attorney holder of appellant
No.1.
3. K.N.Dayanandasagar, respondent No.1 is present.
Respondent No.2 is no more. Appeal against respondent Nos.3
to 5 is dismissed by accepting the memo.
NC: 2023:KHC:43025
4. Parties have presented a joint compromise petition under
Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, duly signed by the parties and their respective
advocates.
5. On behalf of appellants, Sri Sandesh, colleague of Sri
D.S.Jayaraj, has signed the compromise petition. Sri
B.S.Krishna, learned counsel submits that Sri Sandesh he has
been authorized by Sri D.S.Jayaraj, advocate, to sign the
compromise petition. Sri Sandesh and Sri D.S.Jayaraj, are
represented by Sri B.S.Krishna, learned counsel.
6. Contents of the compromise petition are read over to the
parties. Parties submit that the terms of the compromise
petition depict true terms of the settlement. They also
unequivocally submit that there is no force, coercion or undue
influence in reaching out the compromise. They also admit that
the ink corrections made in the compromise petition are only
with regard to the name of the bank and cheque numbers and
same is initialed by counsel for appellants.
7. Sri S.Rajendra, learned counsel for respondents submits
that all ink corrections are brought to the notice of the
NC: 2023:KHC:43025
appellants and cheques are issued as per the terms of the
compromise petition.
8. Sri Hemanth Kumar, and Kavya K.S., the power of
attorney holders of appellants acknowledge the receipt of
cheques by signing the order sheet.
9. Accordingly, there is no impediment for this Court to
accept the compromise petition and dispose of the appeal in
terms of the compromise petition.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal stands disposed of in terms of the
compromise petition.
(ii) Office is directed to draw the decree in terms
of the compromise petition appending copy of
the compromise petition as part of the decree.
(iii) Appellants are entitled for refund of
permissible Court Fee.
(iv) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kcm
