[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Murthy Y vs M/S Dhfl Vysya Housing Finance Ltd on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19263-DB
RFA No. 1505 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1505 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MURTHY Y. S/O YELLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESDING AT NO.6, 18TH CROSS,
20TH MAIN, J.P. NAGAR 5TH PHASE,
S.M.S. LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH ANANTHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S DHFL VYSYA HOUSING FINANCE LTD
NO.20, ASHIRWAD, 9TH MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, JAYANGAR,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560 011
signed by
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
REKHA R
Location:
High Court 2. M/S. V.A.S. DEVELOPERS
of Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER
SRI. C.D.K. VIJAY RAVINDRA
@ PURUSHOTHAMA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SRI. K. DAYANANDA RAJU,
RESIDING AT 271, 3RD CROSS,
3RD MAIN J.P. NAGAR 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078
...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. B.S. ARAVINDA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19263-DB
RFA No. 1505 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 23.09.14 PASSED IN O.S.NO.9133/2013 ON
THE FILE OF C/C XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-38),
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
This Court with the consent of the parties referred
the matter to the Mediation Centre at High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore, vide Order dated 23.01.2026.
2. The parties have settled their dispute amicably
through the process of mediation and they have filed
Memorandum of Settlement under Section 89 of Code of
Civil Procedure 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the
Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.
3. The terms of settlement read as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:19263-DB
HC-KAR
"2. During the course of the mediation the Appellant
has given a proposal of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Only) to the Respondent No.1 for release of
Flat No.F-01, 1st Floor, measuring 1078 super built
up area with one car parking space in basement of
the multistoried building known as V.A.S.Residence
situated at Note No.41 and 46 formed in converted
Sy.No.84/2, Khata No.84, at Arakere Village,Begur
Hobli, Bangalore South, coming under BBMP limits
herein after called Schedule Property which was
purchased by the Appellant from the 2nd Respondent
during the subsistence of the mortgage by one
Mr.Mohammad Mashiulla who was the principal
borrower of the loan A/c No. 18800001558 with DHFL
Vysya Housing Finance Ltd., now named as Aadhar
Housing Finance Ltd.,. The Respondent No.1 has
conveyed to the Appellant that his offer was
considered and accepted by the management of the
Respondent No.1 and accordingly the Appellant has
today brought a demand draft in favour of Aadhar
Housing Finance Ltd. bearing No.641744 dated
24.03.2026 issued by Karnataka Bank Ltd., BTM
Layout Branch, Bengaluru, the same will be handed
over to the Respondent No.1 at the time reporting
this settlement before the Hon'ble Court.
3. The Respondent No.1 agreed that on receipt of the
said demand draft it shall not initiate further legal
NC: 2026:KHC:19263-DB
HC-KAR
proceedings against the Appellant herein in future
before any judicial forum/Tribunal for recovery of any
outstanding amount in respect of loan A/c No
18800001558 with DHFL Vysya Housing Finance Ltd.,
now named as Aadhar Housing Finance Ltd. However
this will not preclude the 1st Respondent from
proceeding against Mr.Mohammad Mashiulla, the
principal borrower for the remaining amount. It is
further clarified that under no circumstance will the
schedule property or the Appellant be in any manner
or circumstance held liable on the failure
Mr.Mohammad Mashiulla, the principal borrower to
clear the balance amount.
4. The Respondent No.1 further agrees that it will not
disturb the physical possession of the Appellant over
the schedule property, which is being held and
enjoyed by the Appellant herein.
5. Both the parties state that they have no claims of
whatsoever nature against each other in future."
4. Parties have put their signatures on the
Memorandum of Settlement along with Advocates.
5. Parties are present in the Court who have been
duly identified by their respective Advocates.
NC: 2026:KHC:19263-DB
HC-KAR
6. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal in terms of
the Compromise extracted above.
7. Let the compromise decree be drawn in terms
of the compromise.
8. The appellant is entitled for refund of the court
fee in accordance with law, as the appellant and
respondents have entered into compromise before the
admission of the appeal.
9. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
tsn*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
