Karnataka High Court
Mr Anantha Shankar C vs Dr Ganesha C on 17 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB
RFA No. 1598 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1598 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MR ANANTHA SHANKAR C
MANAGING PARTNER
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
M/S SKMS TRAVELS
NO.25, 9TH A CROSS
PARK AREA WILSON GARDEN
BENGALURU -560027.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA 1. DR GANESHA C
N
Location:
S/O LATE S CHOODAPPA
HIGH
COURT OF
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
2. SMT SHASHIKALA
W/O DR GANESHA C
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1569
GILSAM AVE, ROCHESTER HILLS
MI 48309 USA
ALSO AT NO.25 AND 25/1
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB
RFA No. 1598 of 2022
9TH A CROSS, PARK AREA
WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU -560027.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH B J.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41
RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN OS No.7660/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGLAURU CITY, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
POSSESSION AND ARREARS OF RENT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The appellant, represented by his Power of Attorney,
the wife, namely, Smt. Prathima Ananth and the
respondents, who are also present in person as identified
by their counsel, have filed an application under Order
XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of of the Code of Civil
NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB
Procedure, 1908 stating that they have settled their inter
se dispute. The compromise petition reads as under:
"1. That the Appellant had filed a Original Suit in
O.S.No. 7488/2018 against brothers before the
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-15) in respect
of Joint Family Properties. During the pendency
of the suit the parties therein have come to suit
settlement and filed a Compromise Petition on
26/11/2024 in the said suit.
2. That the Defendant No.1 and his wife Smt.
Shashikala have filed a suit for ejectment
against the Appellant herein in
O.S.No.7660/2014 in respect of the suit
schedule property. The said suit was decreed
on 30/07/2022.
3. That being aggrieved by the said Judgment and
Decree he has preferred above appeal before
this Hon'ble Court and obtained interim order
of stay and said stay is till in operation.
4. That as already stated above parties in the suit
that is OS. No.7488/2018 have filed a
compromise petition and one of the conditions
of the compromise petition is that the Appellant
NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB
shall handover physical and vacant possession
of the suit schedule property to the Respondent
No.1 herein within five months from the date of
recording the compromise petition. Therefore,
in view of the said condition the Appellant shall
vacate and handover physical possession of
suit schedule property to the 1st Appellant
herein within five months from the date of the
compromise petition. The Respondents herein
have agreed for the same.
5. That in view of the settlement between the
parties herein this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
refund the entire court fee of Rs.3,21,125/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty One Thousand
One Hundred and Twenty Five only). The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High
Court of Judicature at Madras represented by
its Registrar General V/s M.C.Subramaniam
and others reported in AIR 2021 SC 2662 has
held that even in private settlement of dispute
outside of court without requiring judicial
intervention under Section 89 of CPC, the
parties are entitled for refund of court fee.
Hence, in view of the aid Judgment this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to direct the office to refund
the entire court fee paid that is Rs.3,21,125/-
on the Memorandum of the Appeal to the GPA
NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB
Holder of the Appellant herein - Smt. Prathima
Ananth who is none other than his wife. The
photocopies of the said Judgment are enclosed
herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble
Court and same may kindly be read as part and
parcel of this Compromise Petition."
2. The Power of Attorney of the appellant and also
the respondents state that they shall abide by the terms of
the Settlement. The parties reiterate that the appellant
shall handover physical possession of the suit schedule
property to the respondent No.1 within five months
effective from 26.11.2024.
3. Taking the submission made by the parties
before us on record and also the reiteration of the contents
of the compromise application, the appeal is disposed of as
settled. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
appellant prays for refund of Court fee as paid by the
appellant along with the appeal. He relies upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
'HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS, REP. BY
NC: 2025:KHC:1854-DB
ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL v. M.C. SUBRAMANIAM
AND OTHERS' reported in AIR 2021 SC 2662. He states
that the Court fee if allowed to be refunded, the same be
paid to the Power of Attorney of the appellant, namely Smt
Prathima Ananth.
4. Noting the said submission, in view of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to
supra [along with the application], the Court fee be
refunded to the power of attorney holder of the
appellant, namely Smt Prathima Ananth.
The appeal as also the compromise petition are
disposed of as settled out of Court.
SD/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
SD/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
AN/-
List No.: 1 Sl No:6
