Karnataka High Court
Shri K V Jayaprakash vs Dalith Sangharsha Samithi (Samyojaka) on 8 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:869
RFA No. 1446 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1446 OF 2012 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHRI K V JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O K.VISWANATHAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.166, K.R.S. ROAD,
VASAVI TEMPLE STREET,
VISVESWARAPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 004.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI W.M SUNDARA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DALITH SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (SAMYOJAKA),
DR.AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
Digitally signed by "A" SECTOR, 15TH CROSS,
VIJAYALAKSHMI YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BN
Location: High BANGALORE-560 064.
Court of
Karnataka REP. BY ITS CO-ORDINATION DIRECTOR,
SHRI H.MARAPPA.
2. SHRI H MARAPPA,
CO-ORDINATION DIRECTOR,
DALITH SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (SAMYOJAKA),
DR.AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
"A" SECTOR, 15TH CROSS,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 064.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:869
RFA No. 1446 of 2012
3. SHRI DAVID,
S/O LATE NATARAJAN,
MAJOR BY AGE,
R/AT NO.15/124, LBS NAGAR,
YALAHANKA SATELLITE TOWN,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
4. SHRI NAGARAJA,
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PLAINTIFF,
MAJOR BY AGE,
EDITOR, "RAHASYA BAYALU",
PAPER, NO.15, LBS NAGAR,
YELAHANKA STATELLITE TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 064.
5. SHRI K MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE KUPPUSWAMY,
MAJOR BY AGE,
NO.15/133, LBS NAGAR,
YELAHANKA STATELLITE TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H R VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & PROPOSED
R6 ON IA 1/23;
SRI ARNAV A BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R3;
R4 IS SERVED)
THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC. 96(1), OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2012 PASSED IN
O.S.7810/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE 42ND-ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:869
RFA No. 1446 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant files a
memo stating that the appellant/plaintiff is not pressing
the appeal against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. Learned counsel Sri H.R. Vishwanath, submits
that he has already filed Vakalath for respondent No.5.
3. The appellant/plaintiff -K.V. Jayaprakash, Sri.
H. Marappa representing respondent No.1-Dalith
Sangharsha Samithi (Samyojaka), who is also respondent
No.2 are present before the Court along with their counsel.
4. Respondent No.3 Sri David, is also present
along with his counsel.
5. It is submitted that the dispute between the
appellant/plaintiff and respondents No. 1 to 3 has been
settled amicably and to that effect, a Compromise petition
is filed under order 23 Rule 3 CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:869
6. Under the said compromise petition,
respondents No. 1 and 2 have conceded to the right, title,
interest and ownership of the appellant/plaintiff. It is
submitted that respondents No.1 to 3 are not contesting
the suit. Obviously, the suit is for bare injunction. Even
though the parties have stated anything in respect of the
title of the plaintiff, that would not bind anybody else,
except the parties herein.
7. Appellant/plaintiff and respondents No.1 to 3/
defendants No.1 to 3 who are before the Court submit
that they have read the compromise petition and they
have signed the same. When the Compromise petition is
read over, they also submit that they have understood the
same and have signed the compromise petitioner.
8. Their submission are noted and taken on
record.
9. Learned counsel Sri H.R. Vishwanath, who is
appearing for the impleading party through IA 1/2023
NC: 2024:KHC:869
submit that he also has some interest in the suit as he is
claiming ownership over the suit schedule property. The
present suit being a suit for a mere injunction, the scope
of the suit does not permit to consider the title in respect
of the suit property between the plaintiff, defendants and
the impleading third party. Even then, the learned counsel
Sri H.R. Vishwanath for impleading applicant insists that
he should be heard.
10. In view of the fact that the suit for injunction
between two parties has been settled amicably and they
have entered into compromise, there is no scope for the
impleading applicant to putforth his contention regarding
his title. Under these circumstances, impleading
application would not survive for consideration.
Consequently, IA No.1/2023 is dismissed.
11. The appellant has filed memo that the appeal is
not pressed as against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Hence the appeal is dismissed as against Respondent Nos.
4 and 5 as no relief was claimed against them.
NC: 2024:KHC:869
12. In view of the submission of both the parties that
they have entered into compromise, the appeal as well the
suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is disposed of in terms
of the compromise petition. As noted supra, the
compromise decree will not act as a decree in rem, but it
will be in personam.
Sd/-
JUDGE
tsn*
