Karnataka High Court
Sri S Vijaykumar vs Mr Narayanappa on 21 October, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42140
RFA No. 221 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2016 (PAR/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. S. VIJAYKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE SEETAPATHI
2. SMT. KALYANI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O SRI. S. VIJAY KUMAR
BOTH ARE R/O NO.126, TOWER 11, SUPREME
ENCLAVE MAYUR VIHAR,
DELHI-110091.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
1. MR. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
S/O LATE DASAPPA
RESPONDENT NO.1 DIED ON 27.2.2022.
LRS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 ARE ALREADY RECORD
AS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO RESPONDENT NO.6
2. MR. N. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42140
RFA No. 221 of 2016
3. MR. N. ANJANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA
4. MR. N. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA
5. MR. N. NAGABHUSHAN
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA
6. MR. N. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O MR. NARAYANAPPA
ALL ARE R/O VENKATALA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6;
VIDE ORDER DATED:21/10/24, R1 DIED ON 27/2/22,
R2 TO R6 ARE LR'S OF R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2014 PASSED IN
OS.NO.3657/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUITS FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42140
RFA No. 221 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants Nos.1 and
2/plaintiffs for setting aside the judgment and decree for
having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.3657/2004 passed by the VII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dated 20.12.2014.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court is
retained for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have filed
the suit for injunction for restraining the defendants from
interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property bearing No.36B situated at
Sy.No.60/2A of Venkatala village, said to be purchased
from the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 and the
defendants said to be interfering with the peaceful
NC: 2024:KHC:42140
possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.
Hence, this appeal was filed.
5. After appearance, the defendants also filed
written statement denying the same. Based upon the
same, the Trial Court framed the issues and ultimately
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Hence, the appellants
are before this court.
6. During the pendency of the appeal, the
respondent No.1 died. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the
legal representatives of the respondent No.1 and they
have filed joint compromise application along with the
appellants/plaintiffs. The respondents have agreed to pay
Rs.30 lakhs to the plaintiffs as compensation/the sale
consideration, by way of online transfer which is said to be
already transferred to the appellants. The appellants
accepted and acknowledged for having received Rs.30
lakhs from the respondents, through online and agreed to
forego the rights over said suit schedule property.
NC: 2024:KHC:42140
7. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants and respondents along with the parties are
placed on record.
8. Though the appellants claimed suit schedule
property belonging to them as purchased from the GPA
holder of the respondent No.1 and subsequently the suit
came to be dismissed and now they entered into
compromise. The respondent said to be paid rs.30 lakhs
to the appellants and the appellants have received the
same and given up their rights over the suit schedule
property against the site No.36-B situated at Sy.No.60/2A
of Venkatala village and the appellants also stated they
have no right, title, interest or possession existed over the
schedule property hereinafter and the same belongs to the
respondent defendants. Therefore, the compromise
application is hereby requires to be allowed.
Hence, the I.A.No.1/2024 filed for the compromise
of the appeal is hereby allowed.
NC: 2024:KHC:42140
Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of, in terms of
compromise, wherein the appellants received Rs.30 lakhs
and agreed to forego the rights over the site No.36B
situated at Sy.No.60/2A of Venkatala village in favour of
the respondents.
Draw decree Accordingly.
Office to send the copy of the judgment and trial
court records to trial Court.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
