Karnataka High Court

R Rathanprem vs Sri.M K Ramegowda on 21 February, 2024

Author: Krishna S Dixit

Bench: Krishna S Dixit

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB
                                                          RFA No. 483 of 2021




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 21ST 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. 483 OF 2021 (SP)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   R RATHANPREM,
                        S/O RATHNAJA KIKIS,
                        AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

                   2.   SMT ROSELINE MENAKA,
                        W/O RATHANPREM,
                        AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

                        BOTH ARE R/AT MADHU NIVAS,
                        GORKOPPALU MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed        VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN - 573 201.
by SHARADA                                                       ...APPELLANTS
VANI B             (BY SRI. KALYAN R .,ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           AND:
KARNATAKA
                   1.   SRI. M K RAMEGOWDA
                        S/O LATE KENGEGOWDA,
                        AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
                        R/O IN FRONT OF CRIST SCHOOL
                        KUVEMPU ROAD, VIDYANAGARA,
                        HASSAN - 573 201.

                   2.   LILLI PRISEELA D/O R RATHANPREM
                        AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
                        MINOR,
                               -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB
                                        RFA No. 483 of 2021



    MADHU NIVASA,
    GOWRIKOPPALU MAIN ROAD, VIDYANAGAR,
    HASSAN - 573 201.

    GUARDIANSHIP DISCHARGED AS PER
    COURT ORDER DATED 21.02.2024.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H N BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI.M V MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AN DECREE DATED 11.02.2021 PASSED IN OS
No.25/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGEMENT

This appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the Judgment

& Decree for Specific Performance. After service of notice,

the Respondents entered appearance through learned

advocates. The second respondent since attained

majority, the guardian is discharged.

2. Both the sides having brought about a settlement,

have filed the Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC,

1908 seeking disposal of this Appeal in terms thereof.

Essentially the settlement states that the suit property

shall be retained by the vendors who happen to be the

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB

appellants herein and the amount received by way of

earnest & advance in a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- about eight

years ago shall be handed back to the vendee i.e., first

Respondent - M K Ramegowda.

3. The appellants and their counsel to infuse

elements of justice & equity in the subject settlement

undertake to this court that an additional amount of Rs.2

lakh (Rupees two lakh) only also will be given to the first

respondent vendee. They agree that whatever court fee

paid on the appeal memo be directed to be returned to the

first respondent himself and that the remainder of the

amount would be paid to him within four weeks. They

also agree that failure to make such payment would entitle

the first respondent to seek recall of this order and

dismissal of the appeal itself. This is fair enough.

4. The Compromise Petition reads as under:

"Appellants and respondents humbly submits as follows:

1. The appellants have filed the present appeal challenging the judgement and decree

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB

dated 11/02/2021 in O.S.No.25/2017 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan.

2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 6/11/2014. The plaintiff had paid an advance amount of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) out of the total sale consideration amount of Rs.22,00,000/-.

3. That at the intervention of the friends and well-wishers the parties to the lis have agreed to amicably settle the dispute.

The terms of the settlement are as hereunder.

4. The appellants as per the order date d18/12/2021 have deposited an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- before the executing court at Hassan in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court.

5. The appellants have agreed to pay an amount of Rs,20,00,000/- to the respondent No.1/plaintiff for which he has agreed to receive an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- ad has given up his right over the suit schedule property. Towards the payment of Rs.21,00,000/- the appellant have no objection to release the amount of Rs.21,00,000/- which has been deposited by the appellants before the executing court and they would also file necessary memo before the trial court for the release of the said amount infavour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff. The respondent No.2 who is the daughter of the appellants has no objection for the settlement.

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB

6. The respondent No.1/plaintiff will to claim any right over schedule property. And the settlement arrived between the parties is full and final.

7. The respondent No.1/plaintiff hereby acknowledge the receipt of the same ad the amount received is as full and final settlement to the respondent No.1/plaintiff and he has no more claims here afterwards in respect of the schedule property and that, he has no objection for the appellants/defendants to sell the schedule property.

8. The parties to this compromise have arrived at the settlement out of their own free will and consent. There is no any undue influence or coercion on the parties to the settlement.

Wherefore, in view of the full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent no.1/plaintiff, this Hon'ble Court may be please to modify the judgment and decree passed by the trial court I terms of compromise arrived between the parties, in respect of the schedule property and hence, the above appeal may be allowed in terms of the compromise arrived between the parities ad the office may be directed to refund the court fee to the appellants, in the interest of justice and equity.

SCHEDULE

RCC house and sit property measuring East West 20.11 meter South to North 10.66 meter (20.11X10.66 meter), total 214.37 square meter bearing property ID NO.151600602700604206. Property No.1111.


                                              NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB





       MR      No.155/20003-04,       situated    at
       Sathyamangala    Extension,   Kasaba    Hobli,

Hassan Taluk and is bounded as follows:

             EAST          :-    Road.
             West          :-    House of Shankarachar.
             North         :-    House of Dyananada.
             South         :-    Site of Rangegowda."

5. We have perused the Compromise Petition

keeping in mind the undertaking of the appellants to pay

the additional amount of Rs.2 lakh as mentioned above.

We have interacted with the parties personally present

before the Court. We are of the considered view that the

petition is bona fide and there is no impediment for

disposing off the subject appeal in terms of compromise

which would include the undertaking to pay the additional

sum as mentioned.

6. Learned counsel for the parties together submit

that the amount deposited in the Executing Court in Ex.

Petition No. 71/2021 in a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- shall be

paid to the first Respondent - plaintiff Mr. M.K.

Ramegowda immediately. In addition to that

Rs.2,00,000/- the court fee paid on the appeal memo shall

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB

be returned by the Registry to the first respondent only

forthwith. The deficit shall be made good by the

appellants within a period of four weeks from this day,

failing which the said respondent can seek recall of this

order and further dismissal of the appeal also.

7. Since the parties have compromised the dispute

before the hearing date, the Court Fee needs to be

refunded and the said refund shall be made to first

Respondent - M K Ramegowda towards the additional

amount payable to him. The remainder to be made good

within four weeks. A Memo dated 21.02.2024 filed by the

appellants to that effect reads as under:

"The appellants humbly submits that in addition to Rs.21,00,000/- the appellants undertake to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No.1 out of which Court fee of Rs.1,17,700/- Paid by appellants, is permitted to be paid to respondent No.1 and balance amount of Rs.82,300/- will be paid to respondent No.1 within a period of 4 weeks, the same may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

The first Respondent - Mr. Ramegowda, is also agreeable

with this proposal.

NC: 2024:KHC:7248-DB

In the above circumstances, this Appeal is disposed

off in terms of the subject compromise to which additional

condition of paying Rs.2,00,000/- is superadded in terms

of the undertaking given by the Appellants. The Registry

shall refund the fee to the first respondent-

M.K.Ramegowda forthwith and the deficit shall be made

good by the appellants by handing the remainder to him

within four weeks. The impugned Judgment & Decree are

set at naught.