IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE The Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.M.Shyam Prasad Regular Second Appeal No.522 of 2018 (INJ) Between:
1. KRISHNA SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS 2. SMT. LAKSHMI @ THAYAVVA DAUGHTER OF LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT SREEKLUNDAVALLI, RANGASWAMY KRUPA, SURESH NILAYA, NIMISHAMBA NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, DATTAGALLI, MYSURU – 570 004 3. RANGU SON OF LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.25, CH-95, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 004 (BY SRI ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANTS And:
1. A.R.NAGARAJ SON OF LATE A.V.RANGARAO, AGED 66 YEARS 2. PRAMOD N.RAO SON OF A.R.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. VINOD N.RAO SON OF A.R.NAGARAJ, AGED 18 YEARS ALL RE RESIDING AT NO.599/600, 4/2 MAIN ROAD, ‘E’ AND ‘F’ BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNAGAR, MYSURU – 570 004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 READ WITH ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.400/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.08.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.445/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSORE.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Judgment This appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.445/2004 on the file of the Prl. I Civil Judge & JMFC., at Mysuru (for short, ‘the civil Court’). The suit in O.S.No.445/2004 is filed by the deceased C.P.Vani now represented by the respondents, for permanent injunction. The civil Court has dismissed this suit by its judgment dated 05.08.2013. However, in the appeal filed by the respondents in R.A.No.400/2016 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru, the civil Court’s judgment is set aside and the suit for permanent injunction is decreed restraining the appellants from interfering with the respondents’ possession and enjoyment of the property.
2. The learned counsel for the parties submit that the parties have now come to terms with the respondents who have the benefit of the decree in R.A.No.400/2016, acknowledging that the appellants are in possession of the property and that they shall continue in possession thereof as the absolute owners without any claim from the respondents. The appellants, in consideration of such assurance, have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondents and the payment is acknowledged by the respondents.
3. The parties are present before this Court and each of them accepts the terms of the settlement as per the compromise petition. In fact, a document “Samyuktha Patra” is enclosed to the compromise petition. The terms agreed are also part of the compromise petition which read as follows:-
“1. Respondents hereby declare, confirm and affirm that the appellants herein are in actual, physical possession of the suit schedule property as absolute owners thereof having absolute right, title and interest over the same.
2. Respondents further declare and affirm that none of respondents or their predecessor neither had nor have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and that they are not in possession of the same.
3. Respondents acknowledge the execution of the Consent Letter dated 14.09.2019 and undertake to abide by the same. Respondents hereby affirm that the aforesaid Consent Letter has been executed on their own free will without any coercion, force or undue influence whatsoever. Respondents further acknowledge having received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) in cash, on 14.09.2019 from the appellants herein as compensation in full and final settlement of all their claims of whatsoever nature and further declare that they have no further claims of whatsoever nature against the appellants herein. A notorised copy of the consent letter dated 14.09.2019 is attached to the instant Compromise Petition as Annexure A and the same be read as part and parcel of the instant compromise petition.
4. Respondents herewith unconditionally withdraw all the allegations made against the appellants herein in the suit as well as in the Regular Appeal.
5. Respondents reiterate and confirm that they have no rights whatsoever over the suit schedule property and further undertake that they shall not interfere, in any manner whatsoever, with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the appellants.
6. The parties hereby agree that the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2017 passed by first appellate Court in R.A.No.400/2016 be set aside and the above regular second appeal be decreed in terms of the instant compromise petition.
7. Reference to the parties as appellants and respondents in the instant compromise petition shall mean and include their heirs, successors in interest, executors, administrators, assigns and representatives by whatever name called.”
4. The terms of compromise establish that the parties have settled their dispute in full, and this settlement is lawful. As such, the same is accepted. The impugned judgment in O.S.No.445/2004 and in R.A.No.400/2016 are modified. The office to draw decree accordingly subject to payment of appropriate Court fees in accordance with law including any concession that the appellants would be entitled to in terms of the provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 because of the settlement.
* “IA No. 2/2018 is allowed condoning the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal and other application viz., IA No. 1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the appeal is disposed of.”
Sd/- Judge KPS *Corrected Vide Court Order dated 09.10.2020 and deleted order on IA No. 1/2020 at pages 8 to 10 on 18.11.2020.