Karnataka High Court
Dr.V.Narayanaswamy vs Sri.V.Ramaiah on 24 October, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42901
RFA No. 1101 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 1135 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
RFA NO. 1101 OF 2016 C/W
RFA NO. 1135 OF 2016 (INJ)
IN RFA No.1101/2016
BETWEEN:
DR V NARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA
HOLDER SRI VENKATESH
S/O B T VENKATARAMAIAH
CORRECT AGE 59 YEARS
NO 230, 18TH CROSS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 080 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI V RAMAIAH
S/O R VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
Digitally signed by
VEDAVATHI A K
2. SRI R VENKATASWAMY
Location: High
Court of S/O RAMAIAH, MAJOR
Karnataka
BOTH ARE R/AT NO 17
18TH CROSS, 50 FEET ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD
T G LAYOUT, ITTAMADU, BSK III STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 085 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANOJ ARADYA, ADV. FOR R1 & R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH
SECTION 96 OF CPC., JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.04.2016 PASSED IN O.S NO.3509/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 15),
BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42901
RFA No. 1101 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 1135 of 2016
IN RFA NO.1135/2016
BETWEEN:
1. DR.V.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS PA
HOLDER SRI VENKATESH
S/O B T VENKATARAMAIAH
PRESENT CORRECT AGE 59 YEARS
R/O NO.230, 18TH CROSS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080
2. V VENKATESH
S/O B T VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NO.230, 18TH CROSS
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080 ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA., ADV.)
AND:
SRI.V.RAMAIAH
S/O R VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
PRESENT R/O NO.17, 18TH CROSS
50 FEET ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD
T.G.LAYOUT, ITTAMADU
BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MANOJ ARADYA, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH
SECTION 96 OF CPC. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 01.04.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.3385/2007 ON THE FILE
OF THE VIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT
INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:42901
RFA No. 1101 of 2016
C/W RFA No. 1135 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
RFA.No.1101/2016 is filed by the plaintiff for
setting aside the dismissal of the suit in
O.S.No.3509/2007, wherein he sought for an
injunction and RFA.No.1135/2016 is filed by the same
appellant and Mr.V.Venkatesh challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the VIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15) at Bengaluru in the
clubbed common judgment dated 01.04.2016 for
having decreed the suit of the respondent plaintiff in
O.S.No.3385/2007.
2. During pendency of both the appeals, both
appellants and respondents appeared and have filed
joint compromise application under Order XXIII Rule 3
read with Section 151 of CPC for compromise.
3. Parties present and they are represented by
Sri. Shanmukhappa and Sri Manjoj Aradya, learned
counsel. A Joint compromise application is filed by the
parties and signed by the counsels on record.
NC: 2024:KHC:42901
4. As per the terms of compromise, the
appellants Dr.V.Narayanaswamy and V.Venkatesh in
RFA.No.1135/2016 have agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- to respondent defendant V.Ramaiah.
The appellant No.1 said to be the owner and appellant
No.2 said to be the Power of Attorney Holder.
Accordingly, the appellants have paid Rs.10,00,000/-
by way of Cheque bearing No.594344 drawn on South
Indian Bank, K.G.Road Branch, Bangalore on
17.09.2024 itself; Rs.2,00,000/- paid by way of Cash
and Rs.3,00,000/- paid by way of Cheque bearing
No.594343 drawn on South Indian Bank, K.G.Road
Branch, Bangalore on 17.09.2024. The receipt of
Rs.15,00,000/- is acknowledged by the respondent-
V.Ramaiah. The respondent has agreed to forego the
right over the suit schedule property. Thereby the
plaintiff/appellant No.1-Dr.V.Narayanaswamy has
become the absolute owner in possession of the suit
schedule property and the respondent has no objection
NC: 2024:KHC:42901
for the appellant to get khatha transferred in his name
and enjoy the property as absolute owner thereof.
5. The said submission and compromise
application are placed on record. The compromise is in
accordance with law and the parties are permitted to
compromise their dispute. As such there is no
impediment for this Court to dispose of the appeals in
terms of the compromise application.
6. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Both the appeals are disposed of in
terms of the compromise;
ii) Office is directed to draw decree in terms
of the compromise;
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(K.NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
MKM
