Karnataka High Court
K R Suresh Guptha vs Smt. Adirathnamma on 26 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1273 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
C/W
RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
IN RFA NO.1273/2013
BETWEEN:
K.R. SURESH GUPTHA,
S/O LATE K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/A NO.557/C,6TH A MAIN ROAD,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. SMT. ADIRATHNAMMA,
OF
KARNATAKA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
1(A). SMT. SATYABHAMA,
AGED ABOTU 55 YEARS
NO.652, 1ST MAIN ROAD
NAGENDRA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 050.
1(B). SMT. K.R. NAGAVENI,
W/O SRI. K.C. RAGHURAMA SETTY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.514, 7TH MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 019.
1(C). SMT K.R. RAJALAKSHMI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
1(C)(I) SRI. RAJENDRA K.,
S/O KRISHNAIAH,H/O LATE K.R. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
1(C)(II) SRI. BALAJI R.,
S/O RAJENDRA K. & LATE K.R. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NO.4, BHAVANI ROAD,
NEAR MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE,
HEBBAGODI,BENGALURU - 560 099.
1(C)(III) SMT. SARITA R.,
W/O R. RAJENDRA,
D/O RAJENDRA K. &
LATE K.R. RAJALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO.2, 2ND FLOOR,
1ST MAIN RAOD, NEAR BANK COLONY,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 062.
1(D). SRI. K.R. ANANTHAPADMANABHA GUPTA,
S/O LATE SRI. K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,ANANTHA RICE CORNER,
NO.41, SHIVASHAKTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
1(E). SMT. K.R. BHAGYALAKSHMI,
W/O MANJUNATHA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.98, 2ND MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS, GANIGARA PALYA
RESHME NAGAR,BANGALORE - 560 062.
2. SMT. RUKMINAMMA,
W/O PRAKASH GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. M.P. SATISH KUMAR,
S/O PRAKASH GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. PRAKASH GUPTHA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
4(A) SMT. RUKMINAMMA,
W/O PRAKASH GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
4(B) SMT. MANJULA PM,
D/O LATE PRAKASH GUPTHA,
W/O MAHESH BABU P.R.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.41,
PARAMESHWARA BUILDING,
BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR - 635 109,
TAMILNADU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E) AND
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
ALSO FOR R1(C)(I TO III);
SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR
C/R2-R4(A & B)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.5.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.7991/2003 ON THE FILE OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
IN RFA. CROB NO.22/2014
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RUKMINAMMA,
W/O PRAKASH GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SRI. M.P. SATISH KUMAR,
S/O PRAKASH GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.6, 11TH CROSS,
DAVID CHURCH ROAD,
RAMA MURTHY NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 016.
3. SRI. PRAKASH GUPTHA,
S/O LATE SRI. GATTAIAH SETTY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
3(A) SMT. RUKMINAMMA,
W/O PRAKASH GUPTHA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
3(B) SMT. MANJULA PM,
D/O LATE PRAKASH GUPTHA,
W/O MAHESH BABU P.R.,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.41,
PARAMESHWARA BUILDING,
BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR - 635 109,
TAMILNADU.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. K.R. SURESH GUPTHA,
S/O LATE K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/A NO.557/C,
6TH A MAIN ROAD,
HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. SMT. ADIRATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
2(A). SMT. SATHYABHAMA,
W/O N. DEVARAJ GUPTA,
AGED ABOTU 65 YEARS,
NO.652, 1ST MAIN ROAD
NAGENDRA BLOCK
BANASHANKARI III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 050.
2(B). SMT. K.R. NAGAVENI,
W/O SRI. K.C. RAGHURAMA SETTY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.514, 7TH MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS, HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 019.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
1(C). SMT K.R. RAJALAKSHMI,
W/O RAJENDRA GUPTA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
NO.4, BHAVANI ROAD,
NEAR MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE,
HEBBAGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 099.
1(D). SRI. K.R. ANANTHAPADMANABHA GUPTA,
S/O LATE SRI. K.S. RANGAIAH SETTY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
ANANTHA RICE CORNER,
NO.41, SHIVASHAKTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
1(E). SMT. K.R. BHAGYALAKSHMI,
W/O MANJUNATHA GUPTA
MAJOR IN AGE,
NO.98, 2ND MAIN ROAD
4TH CROSS, GANIGARA PALYA
RESHME NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR R2(A-E) )
THIS RFA.CROB IN RFA No.1273/2013 IS FILED
U/ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED:27.5.2013 PASSED IN O.S.No.7991/2003 ON
THE FILE OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS RFA AND RFA CROB, COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
RFA No. 1273 of 2013
C/W RFA.CROB No. 22 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is arising from judgment and decree in
O.S.No.7991/2003 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil
Judge, Bangalore. The said suit is for declaration of
plaintiff's title over the suit property and also to declare
the cancellation sale deed dated 06.04.1998 at
No.88/98-99 registered before Sub-registrar,
Basavanagudi as null and void. The plaintiff has also
sought a declaration to declare the registered sale deed
dated 13.04.1998 executed by defendant No.1 in favour
of defendants 2 and 3 at document No.124/98-99
before the Sub-registrar, Basavanagudi and null and
void. Consequential relief of injunction is also sought.
2. The suit is dismissed holding that there is a
valid sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 4 in the
said suit.
3. The plaintiff filed appeal challenging the said
judgment and decree.
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
4. Respondents No.2 and 4 being aggrieved by
certain observations made in the aforementioned
judgment and decree filed RFA.CROB.No.22/2014.
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.4,
Cross-Objector has filed a memo along with Special
Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2024 executed by
respondent No.2 as well as respondent No.4(a) (same
property in different capacity) in favour of respondent
No.4(b). Except respondent No.4, who is represented by
respondent No.4(b) all other parties to the present
appeal are present before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel for the respondents have identified their
respective parties before this Court.
7. This Court has made an enquiry. The parties to
the proceeding, who are present before this Court admit
that they have understood the contents of the
compromise petition and have voluntarily signed the
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
same. In view of the settlement arrived at among the
parties, the appellant is the absolute owner of the Suit
Schedule Property.
8. This Court has gone through the contents of the
compromise petition. This Court finds that there is no
legal impediment to accept the compromise petition as
the same is lawful. The terms and conditions of the
compromise petition are as follows:
1. The Appellant and Respondents submit that they have
amicably settled the above dispute at the intervention
of friends and well wishers as stated below:-
2. The Appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and the Respondents agreed
that the suit schedule property belongs to the
Appellant and he is the absolute owner in possession
and enjoyment of the same.
3. The Respondents will have no claim whatsoever in the
below mentioned schedule property.
4. The Respondents 4(a) and 4(b) will withdraw their
cross-objections filed by them in the above Appeal
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
and the same may be dismissed as not pressed by
them.
5. The LRs of the 1st Respondent 1(a), (b), (d) & (e) and
LRs of 1(c) i.e. (1)(c)(ii) & (iii), have received
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each and
agree that they have no claim whatsoever in the
schedule property and they agree that the Appellant is
the owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
6. The LRs of the 4th Respondent submits that they have
received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
Only) from the Appellant by way of Demand Draft
bearing No.714474 dated 01/01/2024 drawn on the
State Bank of India, Hanumanthanagar Branch,
Bengaluru and they have no claim whatsoever in the
suit schedule property.
7. The Appellant and Respondents pray that this Hon'ble
be pleased dispose of the above Appeal and
Cross-Objections in the above terms of Compromise
and a Compromise Decree may be drawn in terms of
Compromise in the interest of Justice.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal and the Cross-Objection is disposed of
in terms of the compromise petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7881
(ii) Registry to draw the decree and incorporate the
terms of the compromise petition.
(iii) The appellant and the Cross-Objector are entitled
to refund of full Court Fee.
Sd/-
JUDGE
