Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shankar Rao C vs Sri.K.P.Soundarajan on 15 February, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB
RFA No. 1724 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1724 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKAR RAO C,
S/O SRI LATE CHANDRASHEKARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.99, 4TH CROSS,
VITTAL NAGAR,CHAMARAJAPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI.K.P.SOUNDARAJAN,
S/O LATE K P NAIDU,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
by SHARADA R/AT NO.114, JARAGANAHALLI,
VANI B
Location: HIGH KANAKAPURA ROAD, J P NAGAR,
COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 078
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. DAYANANDA K G., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:19.06.2023 PASSED IN
OS NO.1565/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION & ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB
RFA No. 1724 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The parties have moved a common application under
Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
reporting settlement of the lis in terms of compromise
concluded by & between them. The Compromise
Application reads as under:
"The applicant and the respondent states as
follows:-
"1. The applicant has filed the above suit for
declaration and possession of the suit schedule
property in and possession of the suit schedule
property in O.S. No.1565/2017 before the City
civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore he claims to
have purchased schedule property under a
registered sale deed dated 24-05-2012 from
one Smt.Ambujakshi bai for valuable
consideration and was put in possession of the
suit schedule property and he got the transfer of
the Katha and revenue records.
2. The respondent contested the matter and set
up the claim over the property on the basis of
the decree passed in O.S.no.7423 of 1991
dated: 17-06-1998 and was put in possession of
the property referred to therein in execution
petition from other defenses.
3. The trail court dismisses the suit only on the
issues that suit is barred by res-judicata and
limitation and holding that the decree is passed
in O.S.No.7423 of 1991 was binding on the
plaintiff, without recording the evidence. The
said decree was assigned in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB
4. The dispute between the parties has been
settled by the interventions of the well-wishers.
5. The respondent concedes the title and
possession of the suit schedule property of the
appellant and his privies ad further declare that
he or anybody claiming under him has no right
title, interest and possession whatsoever the
suit schedule property.
6. The applicant has agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only)
by way of Demand Draft Bearing
No.656210, dated 08-02-2024, drawn on
State Bank of India, Chamarajpet Branch
Bangalore for Rs.15,00,000/- And Demand
draft Bearing No.400150, dated 13-
02-2024, draw on Maharastra Bank,
Chamarajpet Branch Bangalore for
Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent against all
his claims.
7. The respondent in consideration of the
amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs only)
has given up his right, title and possession if
any over the suit schedule property in favour of
the appellant and also the right if any under the
decree passed in O.S.No.7423/1991.
8. The respondent under takes that he will not
claim any right over the suit schedule property
on the basis of the any title deed or the decree
passed in O.S.No.7423 of 1991 and has no
objection to decree the suit filed by the
appellant against him seeking Declaration and
Injunction.
9. The above compromise is being arrived at
between the parties out of their free will and
wish and there is no coercion or threat of any
kind whatsoever in arriving the above
compromise.
NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB
10. The appellant prays for refund of the full
court fee.
Therefore, the appellant and respondent pray
that this Hon'ble court be pleased to decree the
suit as prayed for in terms of the above
compromise in the interest of justice and
equity."
2. A bare perusal of the contents of the
Compromise Application raises presumptive value, there
being no reason to doubt its authenticity & bonafide. Each
of its pages is signed by the parties. On the last page,
their signatures do occur along with those of their counsel.
The counsel identified the parties personally present
before the court. We have also interacted with them. In
the open court, the appellant through his counsel has
handed one banker's cheque of State Bank of India dated
8.2.2024 drawn for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakh) only, in favour of sole respondent and
another demand draft dated 13.2.2024 drawn on Bank of
Maharashtra for the likesum in favour of respondent. The
entire amount comprised in the two bank instruments
works out to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh) only.
NC: 2024:KHC:6417-DB
Counsel for the appellant assures that these are genuine
instruments and in the event, they stand unrealized on
due presentation to the bank, he understands that his
client may have to face contempt proceedings apart from
other.
In view of the above, this appeal is allowed; suit is
decreed in terms of this compromise; judgment & decree
of the court below are set aside.
Registry to draw decree accordingly.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CBC
