Karnataka High Court
Sri Muralidhar Reddy vs Sri R Nagaraj on 10 September, 2025
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
RFA No. 24 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MURALIDHAR REDDY
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
1(A) SMT INNAMADAGU VASANTHI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O LATE SRI MURALIDHARA REDDY
1(B) MS INNAMADAGU SNEHAPRIYA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O LATE SRI MURALIDHARA REDDY
1(C) SRI ANJE SAI KISHORE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI MURALIDHARA REDDY
Digitally signed
by ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.151/3-5
HEMALATHA A
SRI SRI HOMES APARTMENTS
Location: HIGH NEAR BAGAMANE TECHPARK
COURTOF
KARNATAKA SIDDAGUNTAPALYA
C V RAMANAGARA, BANGALORE NORTH
BENGALURU-560 093.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R A CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI R NAGARAJ
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
RFA No. 24 of 2013
HC-KAR
1(A) SMT. SOWBHAGYA B M
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O LATE NAGARAJ R( 1ST WIFE)
1(B) SMT M MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
W/O LATE NAGARAJ R (2ND WIFE)
1(C) SRI YASHWANTH M N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE NAGARAJ R
1(D) SRI AJAY N
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O LATE NAGARAJ R
R1(A) TO R1(D) ARE R/AT
NO.66, BYRAVESHWARA NILAYA
HARAHALLI ROAD, 1ST WARD
MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.
2. SRI A RAMAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
2(A) SMT GAYATHRI DEVI
W/O LATE RANGASWAMY
D/O RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/AT RAMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE
MADURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K H SOMASHEKARA., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D):
SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A))
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.10.2012
PASSED IN O.S.NO.1282/2007 ON THE FILE OF 24TH
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE,
DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
RFA No. 24 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the
judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by the
XXIV Additional City Civil and Judge, Bangalore (CCH-6) in
O.S.No.1282/2007, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs
has been decreed.
2. On service of notice, the plaintiff appeared
through counsel. The appellant/defendant and the
respondent/plaintiff are dead. Hence, their legal
representatives are brought on record. Now, the parties
have settled the matter and they have filed a compromise
petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. The compromise
petition is signed by the parties. The parties are present
before the Court. They and their signatures are identified
by their respective learned advocates. They state that
they have entered into the settlement out of their volition
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
and without any duress from anybody and they have
settled the matter in terms of the compromise petition.
The compromise petition is extracted below:
"APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Appellant No. 1(a) to 1(c) and Respondent No. 1(a)
to 1(d) submit as hereunder:
1. The father of Appellants No.1(a) to 1(c) has filed
the present appeal challenging the Judgment and
Decree dated 30.10.2012 passed by XXIV Additional
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore(CCH-6) in OS
No. 1282/2007, which was filed by the father of the
Respondent No.1(a) to (d) interalia for a judgment
and decree to declaration that he is the absolute
owner of the schedule property by virtue of the
registered sale deed dated 29.09.2006 registered in
the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore as Document No. KRI-1-21673/2006-07
condensed in CD No.KRID-225 executed by erstwhile
owner, l.e. 2nd respondent, in respect of the schedule
property and for a permanent injunction.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, upon perusal
of the title documents regarding the Suit Schedule
Property, and after obtaining independent legal
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
advice, Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) agreed to
amicably settle the dispute with the Appellants and
confirm the ownership and possession of the
Appellants over the Suit Schedule Property.
3. Accordingly, Appellants No.1(a) to (c) and
Respondent 1(a) to 1(d) have come forward to settle
the matter. Respondent 1(a) to 1(d) out of her own
free will and volition, agrees to affirm the ownership
and possession of the Appellants over the suit
property. In view of making such confirmations
regarding ownership and possession of the
Appellants, Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) requested
the Appellants to make payment of certain amounts,
which were agreed to by the Appellants.
4. The Appellants have paid a total sum of INR.
65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Five Lakhs only) to
Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) towards full and final
settlement of all claims, rights, title and interest, if
any, over the Suit Schedule Property and to assert
the ownership of the Appellants. The payments have
been made as follows:
i. INR. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
vide Demand Draft bearing No.313561 dated
08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1 ^ (st) stage
Branch, Bangalore in favour of SMT.Soubhagya B.M.
W/o of late Nagaraj R.
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
ii. INR. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only)
vide Demand Draft bearing No.313558 dated
08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1st stage
Branch, Bangalore in favour of SMT.Manjula M W/o
of late Nagaraj R.
iii. INR. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
vide Demand Draft bearing No.313560 dated
08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1st stage
Branch, Bangalore in favour of SRI.YASHWANTH M.N
S/o of late Nagaraj R.
iv. INR. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
vide Demand Draft bearing No.313559 dated
08.9.2025 drawn on PPB Indiranagar 1st stage
Branch, Bangalore in favour of SRI.AJAY N S/o of late
Nagaraj R.
5. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) hereby acknowledges
the receipt of the amount and accepts the same as a
full and final settlement of all claims over the suit
schedule property.
6. Respondent 1(a) to 1(d) hereby unequivocally
states that they have no right, title or interest of any
nature whatsoever in the suit schedule property and
all claims, rights or proceedings in relation thereto
stand irrevocably withdrawn against the Appellants
and other parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
7. The Respondents No.1 (a) to (d) further confirm
that the Appellants are the absolute owners in lawful
possession of the Suit Schedule Property by virtue of
registered Sale Deed dated 07.05.1997 registered as
Document No.943/1997-98, of Book 1, volume 1383
at pages 229-236 in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore. The Appellants and
their predecessor, Late Muralidhar Reddy, have been
in continuous, uninterrupted possession since the
date of purchase.
8. The Respondents No.1 (a) to (d), out of their own
free will, irrevocably confirm and declare that the
Appellants are absolute owner in full possession and
enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property with all
rights to enjoy, deal with or dispose of the Suit
Schedule Property in any manner they deem fit. They
further consent to the order of permanent injunction
restraining themselves and their family members
from interfering with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the Appellants.
9. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) admits and declares
that they or anyone claiming under them do not have
any kind of right, title, interest or whatsoever over
the Suit Schedule Property. Respondent No. 1(a) to
1(d) further undertake that they will not have any
claim whatsoever to any extent whatsoever against
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
the Appellant or the suit property or any part
thereof.
10. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) hereby confirm that
Respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d) are the only legal
representatives of deceased Respondent No.1- Late.
R. Nagaraj and there are no other legal
representatives of the said deceased R. Nagaraj.
11. The Respondents unconditionally withdraw all
allegations, pleadings, depositions and claims made
in O.S. 1282/2007 and consent to abide by the
averments made by the Appellants in their written
statement in O.S.No. 1282/2007.
12. The Respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) consent to the
Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2012 passed
in O.S.No. 1282/2007 by XXIV Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-6) being set aside,
and further consent that they have no objections to
dismissal of the suit as prayed for by the Appellants
in O.S.No. 1282/2017.
13. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) also affirm that they
have not entered into any agreement, transaction or
encumbrance with any third party in respect to the
Suit Schedule Property with any other person/s.
14. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) consents that the
registered Sale Deed dated 29.09.2006 registered in
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram Hobli
Bangalore as Document No.KRI-1-21673/2006-07
condensed in CD No.KRID-225 dated 29.9.2006
executed by erstwhile owner i.e. 2nd respondent in
respect of the schedule property as null and void,
and the jurisdictional sub- Registrar, Yelahanka, be
directed to make necessary entries cancelling the
said document.
15. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) have no objection to
return of original documents and certified copies
produced as exhibits in OS No.1282/2007 to the
Appellants and today hand over other original title
documents relating to the Suit schedule property to
the Appellants. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) further
have no objection to the Appellants getting the Katha
mutated in favour of Appellant No.1(b) before the
jurisdictional revenue authorities.
16. Respondent No. 1(a) to 1(d) hereby confirm that
legal representative of Respondent No.2 Smt.
Gayathri Devi has no rights over the suit schedule
property. Respondent No.2 was a formal party in the
suit.
17. In view of the compromise Appeal Against
Respondent No.2 be dismissed as withdrawn by the
Appellants No.1(a) to (c).
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
18. Appellant No. 1(a) and (c) have agreed that suit
site shall be held by Appellant No.1(b) with absolute
title and possession.
19. The present compromise is fair, lawful,
voluntary, equitable and agreeable to both parties.
WHEREFORE, in view of the present compromise, it is
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to dispose of the present appeal in terms of
the compromise petition and the office may be
directed to draw up the decree in terms of the
present compromise petition and the court fee paid
by the Appellant may be ordered to be returned to
the Appellant, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. This Court, after satisfying with the terms of the
compromise petition, passed the following order:
a) The appeal is disposed of in terms of the
compromise petition.
b) The compromise petition filed under Order
XXIII Rule 3 of CPC is ordered to be treated as
part and parcel of this order.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35845
HC-KAR
c) The Registry is directed to draw the decree in
terms of the compromise petition.
d) The Registry is directed to refund the entire
court fee in favour of the appellant No.1(b) -
Ms.Innamadagu Snehapriya, after due
verification.
e) The trial court is directed to refund the court
fee paid by the plaintiff in the suit in favour of
respondent No.1(b) herein - Smt.M.Manjula,
after due verification.
f) In view of disposal of the petition, all pending
applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
