IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR R.F.A.NO.1838/2017 BETWEEN :
ATTAKKALARI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 39/3525, KAUSTHUBHAM, MANIKKATLI ROAD, KOCHI ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682106 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE P. JAYACHANDRAN (BY MS. JAYNA PANKAJ KOTHARI, ADV.) AND :
... APPELLANT MRS. A GEETHA RAO AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O LATE UMASHANKARA RAO R/AT NO.5978, ALLEN AVENUE SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95123 USA ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K, ADV. FOR C/R) THIS R.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:28.07.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO.5388/11 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR EJECTMENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL, J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 28.07.2017 passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.5388/2011, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent herein.
2. The appellant who is in occupation of the suit schedule premises as a tenant, has been directed to hand over possession of the premises within a period of three months from the date of decree. The appellant has been also ordered to pay Rs.18,500/- p.m., from 01.07.2011 till the date of handing over possession of the property towards mesne profits.
3. During the pendency of this appeal, both parties have amicably settled their dispute and have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. Both parties are present before the Court.
4. The appellant-Trust is represented by its managing Trustee Sri.P.Jayachandran, whereas the respondent M/s.A.Geetha Rao is represented by her brother and GPA Holder. A copy of the general power of attorney has been enclosed to the caveat petition filed. Both parties are identified by their counsel. On enquiry by the Court, they submit that they have understood the contents of compromise petition which has been explained to them by their respective learned counsel. They have also categorically stated that they have voluntarily put their signature to the compromise petition after having understood the same and having agreed to the terms of compromise.
5. On perusal of the terms of compromise, we find that appellant has agreed to pay entire arrears as determined by the Court below. Total amount of Rs.7,49,250/- being entire amount due towards arrears of rent has been paid and receipt of the same has been acknowledged. Indeed, a demand draft dated 11.12.2017 bearing No.310717 for balance dues in this connection amounting to Rs.7,49,250/- is handed over by appellant to respondent. Respondent acknowledges receipt of the same. Parties have further agreed for certain terms and conditions which are incorporated in the compromise petition. We do not find any impediment to record the compromise and dispose of this appeal in terms of compromise.
6. Accordingly, the compromise petition is accepted.
Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise by modifying the Judgment and Decree under challenge.
Office is directed to draw decree accordingly.
Court Fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded in accordance with Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
SD/- JUDGE bnv* SD/- JUDGE