IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A. No. 1353/2009 C/W R.S.A. No. 1352/2009 BETWEEN:
C NARAYANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS:
1. GOWRAMMA W/O C NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 2. N SRIDHARA S/O C NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK … COMMON APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H M GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS:
1. YELLAGAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 2. MUNIAKKAYAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 3. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O SONNALLIPURA VILLAGE SULIBELE HOLBI HOSKOTE TALUK 4. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 5. MUNI ANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK 6. MANJUALA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O HUNISEHALLI VILLAGE HOSAKOTE TALUK 7. ANJANAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O BANDE BOMMASANDRA VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK ... COMMON RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B T INDUSHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 7) RSA NO. 1353/2009 IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2009 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 135/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE, RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S. 1283/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. II CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
RSA NO. 1352/2009 IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2009 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 135/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BANGALORE, RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE RELIEF OF THE APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE COUNTER CLAIM FILED IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S. 1283/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. II CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN), BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
THESE RSAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Learned counsel Sri. B.T.Indushekar files power for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 and the same is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for appellants and respondents in both the cases are present. They submit that the matter is settled through compromise and they filed compromise petitions dated 21.3.2019 under order 23 rule 3 of CPC duly signed by the parties and attested by their respective counsel in both the appeals and the same are taken on record.
3. It is seen that, O.S.NO.1283/2005 is a suit filed for specific performance and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land bearing Survey No.59/4 measuring 15 guntas situated at Bandebommasandra village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The defendant resisted the suit and set a counter claim. The trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff came to be allowed in RA No.135/2007, against which the defendant filed the present appeal before this court. Thus, it is the defendant’s appeal against the judgment made in favour of the plaintiff for specific performance.
4. The substance of the compromise petitions are that, the defendants/appellants have agreed to pay Rs.35.00 lakh to the plaintiffs/respondents.
5. The Compromise petition dated 21.03.2019 in RSA No.1353/2009 read as under:
1. The Appellants have filed the above Appeal Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No. 135/2007 for having allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn). at Bangalore in O.S. No. 1283/2005. The Respondents have filed the suit for Specific performance and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.
59/4 measuring 15 guntas situated at Bande Bommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Trial court dismissed the suit even though recorded the finding that the contract between the parties was proved and counter claim made by the Defendant for grant of Permanent Injunction was allowed. Against which the Respondents filed the Appeal in R.A. No.135/07 which came to be allowed and the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed. As such, the Defendant has filed the Second Appeal before this Hon’ble Court. The above Appeal is in respect of the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff for specific performance and Permanent Injunction.
2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above Appeal, the Defendant/original Appellant died and his Legal heirs are brought on record as Appellants No. 1(a) and 1(b). As the litigation was going on, at the instance of the well wishers, the Appellants and the Respondents have arrived at an amicable settlement and agreed for the disposal of the above Appeal on the following terms:-
3. As both the courts have held that there was a contract between the parties and the entire sale consideration was paid to the Defendant, the Appellants have decided to retain the property and to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) to the Respondents for which the Respondents have agreed. Accordingly, the Appellants have paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 468848 dated 28.03.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch infavour of Munianjinappa the Respondent No.5 which has been received by the Respondents. For the Payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/-(Rupees thirty lakhs only) the Appellants have sought for 4 months time and towards the same they have issued the post dated cheques infavour of the Respondents as follows:
a) Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473171 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Smt. Yellagamma, the Respondent No.1.
b) Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473172 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Smt. Muniakkayyamma, the Respondent No.2.
c) Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473173 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Smt. Gowramma, the Respondent No.3.
d) Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473174 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Smt. Lakshmamma, the Respondent No.4 e) Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473175 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Sri. Munianjinappa, the Respondent No.5.
f) Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473176 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Smt. Manjula, the Respondent No.6.
g) Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) through the cheque bearing No. 473177 dated 13.07.2019 drawn on Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kothanur Branch, infavour of Sri. Anjanappa, the Respondent No. 7.
4. The aforesaid cheques are accepted by Respondents subject to realization and it is further agreed between the parties that for any reasons if any cheques or any one of the cheques is bounced the payments made by the appellants stand forfeited and the Respondents have got right and liberty to seek for restoration of the Appeal and can continue to prosecute the Appeal on merits and the Appellants have agreed, for this specific condition and in the event the cheques are honored and the amount is paid to the Respondents as agreed the above Appeal as well as connected Appeal in RSA 1352/2009 which are to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court would remain and there by the suit of the Plaintiff in O.S. No.1283/2005 stands dismissed and the Appellants are at liberty to enjoy the schedule property as they like which would be only after payment of entire amount to the respondents. In view of the Compromise entered into between the parties in above terms, the agreement dated 05.09.1990 is hereby stands cancelled. Further, it is agreed between the parties that the Appellants are at liberty to make cash payments in lieu of the cheques on their due dates and the Respondents are ready to accept the cash payments by returning the cheques to the Appellants by executing receipt/voucher for having received the cash in lieu of payment through cheques.
5. The parties have entered into this compromise on their own Volition without there being any force, undue influence or coercion and accordingly this compromise if for the better interest of the Appellants as well as the Respondents.
6. The parties have agreed to bear their own costs.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal in terms of Compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity”.
6. The Compromise petition dated 21.03.2019 in RSA No.1352/2009 read as under:
1. The Appellants have filed the above Appeal Challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No. 135/2007 for having allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondents against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn). at Bangalore in O.S. No. 1283/2005. The Respondents have filed the suit for Specific performance and permanent injunction in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 59/4 measuring 15 guntas situated at Bande Bommasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The Trial court dismissed the suit even though recorded the finding that the contract between the parties was proved and counter claim made by the Defendant for grant of Permanent Injunction was allowed. Against which the Respondents filed the Appeal in R.A. No.135/07 which came to be allowed and the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed. As such, the Defendant has filed the Second Appeal before this Hon’ble Court. The above Appeal is in respect of the decree passed in favour of the Defendant for Court claim to grant Permanent Injunction which was allowed by the Trial court and set aside by the first Appellate Court.
2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above Appeal, the Defendant/original Appellant died and his Legal heirs are brought on record as Appellants No. 1(a) and 1(b). As the litigation was going on, at the instance of the well wishers, the Appellants and the Respondents have arrived at an amicable settlement and agreed for the disposal of the above Appeal on the following terms:-
3. As both the courts have held that there was a contract between the parties and the entire sale consideration was paid to the Defendant, the Appellants have decided to retain the property and to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) to the Respondents for which the Respondents have agreed. Accordingly, the Appellants have paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) as shown in the compromise petition filed in R.S.A. No. 1353/2009.
4. The aforesaid cheques are accepted by Respondents subject to realization and it is further agreed between the parties that for any reasons if any cheques or any one of the cheques is bounced the payments made by the appellants stand forfeited and the Respondents have got right and liberty to seek for restoration of the Appeal and can continue to prosecute the Appeal on merits and the Appellants have agreed, for this specific condition and in the event the cheques are honored and the amount is paid to the Respondents as agreed the above Appeal as well as connected Appeal in RSA 1353/2009 which are to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court would remain and there by the suit of the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 1283/2005 stands dismissed and the Appellants are at liberty to enjoy the schedule property as they like which would be only after payment of entire amount to the respondents. In view of the Compromise entered into between the parties in above terms, the agreement dated 05.09.1990 is hereby stands cancelled.
5. The parties have entered into this compromise on their own Volition without there being any force, undue influence or coercion and accordingly this compromise if for the better interest of the Appellants as well as the Respondents.
6. The parties have agreed to bear their own costs.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the Appeal in terms of Compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity.”
7. Compromise appears to be lawful. Hence, accepted. Appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise petitions.
Since the defendants are getting the amount of Rs.35.00 lakh which is the relief which the plaintiffs are receiving and value of the relief under the suit for specific performance is said to be Rs.15,500/-. Hence, the parties are directed to pay the court fee on the relief of Rs.35.00 lakh minus court fee paid on Rs.15,500/-. However, they are entitled for refund of the same as provided under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
Draw the decree in terms of the compromise petitions.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*