Karnataka High Court
Sri B R Nagaraju vs Sri B R Thimmaiah on 16 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6821
RFA No. 281 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2008 (RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI B R NAGARAJU,
S/O. SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/IN A PORTION OF NO.1278,
6TH CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 039.
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
1(a) SMT. RADHAMMA,
W/O LATE B.R NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
1(b) SRI PRADEEP.N,
S/O LATE B.R NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
1(c) SRI SHANKAR.N,
Digitally signed
by S/O LATE B.R NAGARAJU,
ANNAPURNA G AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
Location: High
Court of ALL ARE R/AT NO. 1278, 6TH CROSS,
Karnataka GANGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 039.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M M SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT-1 [a-c])
AND:
1. SRI B R THIMMAIAH,
S/O. SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA,
AGED BOUT 47 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6821
RFA No. 281 of 2008
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
1(a) SMT. T YASHODAMMA,
W/O LATE B.R. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1278, 6TH CROSS,
GANGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 039.
1(b) SMT. TANUJA,
W/O SRI DAYANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 8TH CROSS, ANJANAPPA
TEMPLE ROAD, GANGONDANAHALLI,
BENGALURU- 560 039.
2. SRI B R RAMECHANDRA,
S/O. SRI RAMALINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/IN A PORTION OF NO.1278, 6TH
CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 039.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S D N PRASAD & SRI M.N UMESH, ADVOCATES FOR
R1 (a) & (b);
R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2007 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.736/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-28), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsels appearing for the appellants
and the respondents are present. The appellants as well as
the respondents are also present.
NC: 2024:KHC:6821
2. This matter was referred to Lok Adalat and after
negotiations, there was a settlement before the Lok
Adalat. But the Lok Adalat could not dispose of the same
since the LRs., of deceased appellant were not brought on
record. Therefore, for the limited purpose of bringing the
LRs of deceased appellant on record, the matter was
referred back to the Court.
3. The observation of the Lok Adalat before which
the negotiations took place reads as:
"The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1(a) and 1(b) are present before the
Lok Adalat.
It is submitted that the appellant is no more
and the legal heirs of the appellant by name
Radhamma W/o B.R. Nagaraju, Sri Shankar and
Pradeep sons of B.R. Nagaraju are present. The
respondent No.1(a) Yashodhamma present.
After negotiations between the parties, they
have come to a settlement whereby the respondent
No.1(a) and 1(b) who are the plaintiffs before the
Trial Court have agreed to part with a portion of the
property as described in the sketch annexe to the
NC: 2024:KHC:6821
joint memo, measuring 40 x 12 feet in favour of the
appellants who are the legal heirs of the defendant
No.1.
After the negotiations, it is found that the
appellant and defendant No.1 had died. But the
application as required under Order 22 of CPC was
not filed. Therefore, keeping on record the joint
memo filed by the parties who are present before
us today, the matter is referred back to the Court
for needful to be done to bring the legal heirs of the
appellant. Hence, list the matter before the Court."
4. In view of the settlement reached before the
Lok Adalat, the parties who are present before the Court
are enquired. Appellant No. 1(a) to (c) as well as
respondent No. 1(a) and (b) are present before this Court
and they confirmed the settlement reached before the Lok
Adalat, in pursuance to which, a Joint Memo/Compromise
Petition was filed before the Lok Adalat.
5. The respondents also admit the receipt of
Rs.25,000/- towards the taxes which was due by the
appellants towards the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:6821
6. Therefore, having satisfied that the appellants
and respondents have reached a settlement as per the
Joint Memo, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the Joint
Memo dated 09-09-2023. Consequently, the impugned
judgment passed by the trial Court in OS No.736/2000
dated 31-10-2007 is set aside and suit of the plaintiff is
decreed in terms of the compromise petition.
7. The original documents be returned to the legal
heirs of the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 (a) and (b).
Draw decree in terms of the compromise petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
