Karnataka High Court
Sri T K Lakshman vs Sri T K Yeshwanth Kumar on 17 March, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
RFA No. 972 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.972 OF 2022 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T. K. LAKSHMAN
S/O LATE T. KRISHNA CHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A NO.38,
GOVINDAPPA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
Digitally signed 2. SMT. S. VASANTHA LAKSHMI
by SUMATHY
KANNAN W/O T. K. LAKSHMAN
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/A NO.38,
GOVINDAPPA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.NAGENDRA NAIK FOR
SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. T. K. YESHWANTH KUMAR
S/O LATE T. KRISHNA CHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A NO.38,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
RFA No. 972 of 2022
GOVINDAPPA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
2. SRI. T. K. RAMESH
S/O LATE T. KRISHNA CHETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/A NO.38,
GOVINDAPPA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560 004.
3. SRI. T. K. PRABHAKARA
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS)
3(A) SRI. P. TEJAS (SON)
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
3(B) SRI. P. VARUN (SON)
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
3(C) SMT. ANNAPURNA (WIFE)
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/A NO.38,
GOVINDAPPA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004.
NOW CHANGED TO:
NO.3/2,
SANNIDI ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
...RESPONDENTS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
RFA No. 972 of 2022
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. C.V.ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. RAJARAM T., ADVOCATE FOR R3(A-C))
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2022 PASSED IN
FDP No.89/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XX RULE 12 R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This appeal is preferred by the appellants being
aggrieved by the order passed by the FDP Court in FDP
No.89/2016 dated 22.03.2022 arising out of the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.7983/2014 dated 30.04.2016 and
praying to set aside the same, for the grounds urged in
the appeal.
2. Learned counsel Shri Prakasha M who is on record
for appellants is represented by the learned counsel Shri
K. Nagendra Naik and the learned counsel Shri Janardhana
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
G appears for Respondent No.1. Learned counsel Shri
C.V. Annaiah appears for Respondent No.2. The learned
counsel Shri T. Rajaram for R3(a) to (c) is present before
Court. However, it is submitted that there is no role of
R3(a) to (c), in the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for appellants as well as the
learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with
their respective parties, have jointly filed a compromise
petition dated 07.03.2025 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC,
stating that they have settled their issues in terms of the
compromise entered into between them and hence seek
that the present appeal be disposed of in terms of the said
compromise. The said compromise petition which has
been filed by the parties reads thus:
"Under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, both Appellants and Respondents 1
and 2 compromise the matter, as follows:-
1. After the preliminary decree was passed in
O.S.No. 7983/2014, the same has been concluded in
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
the court below in FDP No.89/2016 dated
22.03.2022 by allotting specific shares to each of the
parties, as per the sketch submitted by the Court
Commissioner and accordingly all the parties have
agreed to take the respective shares. In view of the
same, the Appellants are withdrawing the above
appeal, accepting the said decree.
2. In respect of the portion allotted to the 3rd
respondent he has got the document Registered in
Office of Senior Sub-Registrar Basavanagudi
Bengaluru as document No. BSG-1-02470-2022-23,
Book No.1 and CD No. BSGD1219 dated 24.06.2022
and in the said portion the 2nd respondent has
continued to be in possession and in view of this
compromise he has agreed to deliver the physical
possession of the same to this respondent within 3
months from today.
3. In terms of the understanding reached between
the Appellants and the 1st Respondent, he is paying
Rs.5,00,000/- to the Appellants through a post-dated
cheque bearing No.888014, dated 15.05.2025,
drawn on Indian Bank, Basavanagudi Branch,
Bangalore, in favour of Appellant No.1.
4. At the request of the Appellants, the Respondent
No.2 has agreed to hand over the possession of the
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
property bearing No.6/1A, measuring East to West:
56 feet, North to South: 45 feet, situated at Kasaba
Hosur village, Union No.1001, 7th Ward,
Nagarthpettai, Hosur Taluk, Hosur Sub Division,
Salem Registration District to the Appellants within
the reasonable period.
5. All the parties have agreed to take their respective
shares accordingly without any further dispute
between them.
6. This compromise has been entered into out of
their out of their own free will, without force or
pressure from any one and for the benefit for all.
7. The certified copy of the order passed in FDP
No.89/2016 dated 22.03.2022 is already filed with
appeal memo and however copy of the same is
enclosed with this compromise petition.
Wherefore, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to accept
this compromise and thereby confirm the decree
passed by the Trial Court in the above FDP
proceedings and draw the decree accordingly, in the
interest of justice."
NC: 2025:KHC:10954-DB
4. The above extracted compromise petition has
been duly signed by the appellants, Respondent Nos.1 and
2 and their respective learned counsel. Learned counsel
for appellants inclusive of the learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly submit that the
compromise petition as recorded above be taken on record
and the appeal be disposed of in terms of the compromise.
The terms of compromise are recorded also in the
presence of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3(a)
to 3(c), who have no role to play in this appeal.
5. Accordingly, the compromise petition is taken on
record and the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the
compromise entered into between the parties.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KS
