Karnataka High Court
Sri D.C. Siddappa vs Smt. Sowbhagyamma on 25 July, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29630
RSA No. 1035 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2013 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. D.C. SIDDAPPA,
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/O DASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA (TA),
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 121,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS A1(a) to 1(d)
1(A). BASAVARAJAMMA D.S,
D/O D.C. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DASANAHALLI,
NIDUVANDA, BANGALORE RURAL,
Digitally KARNATAKA - 562 132.
signed by
PRAKASH N 1(B). JAGADEESHAIAH D.S.,
Location: S/O D.C. SIDDAPPA,
HIGH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT DASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 132.
1(C). SUJATHA D.S,
D/O D.C. SIDDAPPA,
W/O SIDDAGANGA MURTHY P,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29630
RSA No. 1035 of 2013
NO.410, 2ND STAGE, EXTENSION,
BAHEAL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
PATTANAGERE SOUTH,
BANGALORE SOUTH - 560 098.
1(D). SATHISH KUMAR S,
S/O D.C. SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 572 132.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY, ADVOCATE
FOR A1(a) TO A1(d))
AND:
SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA,
W/O D.C. CHANNAMALLIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O 4TH CROSS, THONTADARYA,
SIDDAGANGA EXTENSION,
TUMAKUR - 572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 100 OF
CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 17.4.2013
PASSED IN R.A.NO.432/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.9.2012 PASSED
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29630
RSA No. 1035 of 2013
IN OS.NO.231/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC, NELAMANGALA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants are before this Court seeking for the
following relief:
"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that, this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting-aside the
judgment and decree dated 17/04/2013 in RA
No.432/2012 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore
reversing the judgment and decree dated 04/09/2012
passed in O.S.No.231/2009 (Old No 1288/2004) on the
file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Nelamangala and
further be pleased to restore the judgment and decree
passed by the trial court with costs throughout in the
interest of justice and equity."
2. During the pendency of the above matter, the parties
have settled the matter and filed a compromise petition
under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, which is reproduced hereunder:
"The appellants and respondent respectfully submit
as below:
NC: 2024:KHC:29630
1. The above appeal is filed challenging the
Judgement and Decree dated 17-04-2013 in RA No.
432/2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court- III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore
reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 04-09-
2012 passed in OS No. 231/2009 (Old No.
1288/2004) on the file of the Senior Civil Judge &
JMFC at Nelamangala.
2. It is submitted that OS No. 231/2009 was
instituted for a Judgement and decree of Specific
performance of the agreement dated 02-06-1999
contending that the respondent had executed an
agreement to sell in respect of land bearing Sy No.
5/2 measuring 3-00 Acres situated at Dasenahalli,
Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural
District for sale consideration of Rs 75,000/. The Trial
Court was pleased to decree the suit and directed the
respondent to execute the sale deed and there was
direction to deposit the balance consideration of Rs
5,000/ and said amount was also deposited before
the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court has passed
a Judgement and Decree reversing the Judgement
and Decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed
the suit.
3. During the pendency of this appeal since the
parties are close relatives, the appellants and
respondent have amicably settled their disputes with
the following terms:
(a) The appellants have given up their claim to
seek for specific performance of the agreement dated
02-06-1999 and in turn, the respondent has agreed
to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/ (Eight Lakhs only) to
the appellants towards full and final settlement of the
claims of the appellants in respect of the agreement
dated 02-06-1999.
(b) The respondent today handed over a Demand
Draft dated: 20-07-2024 bearing No. 821181 drawn
on SBI bank, Siddaganga Exten. Branch, in favour of
Jagadeeshaiah D S (appellant 1(b) )(as agreed by
other appellants) for a sum of Rs 8,00,000/(Eight
lakhs only) and all the appellants acknowledges the
receipt of the amount as full and final settlement of
NC: 2024:KHC:29630
their claims in respect of the suit agreement dated
02-06-1999.
(c) The appellants are entitled to withdraw the
amount deposited in OS No. 231/2009 before the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Nelamangala and the
respondent is not having any objection for withdrawal
of amount in deposit.
(d) The appellants also undertakes that the
respondent is absolute owner and in peaceful
possession of the schedule property in OS
No.231/2009 as on today and further undertakes that
they will never interfere with the schedule property in
future. If the Appellants interfere with the peaceful
possession of the schedule property, the Respondent
may take legal action as per law.
(e) The Appellants and Respondent have signed this
compromise petition without there being any
coercion, undue influence or any compulsion by any
of the parties.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that by
accepting this compromise petition, above appeal
may be disposed off in terms of this compromise
petition in the interest of justice and equity."
3. All the Appellants and the Respondent are present before
this Court and they submit that they have entered into a
compromise without there being any coercion, undue
influence or any compulsion by any of the parties or
external third-parties or duress played on them.
4. The Appellants and the Respondent are identified by their
respective counsels. The compromise entered into being
lawful, is accepted. The said compromise petition is taken
NC: 2024:KHC:29630
on record. Order passed in R.A.No.432/2012 stands
confirmed.
5. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SMJ
