IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY R.F.A.No.1182 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. M/s. Ideal Enterprises No.150/1 and 2, Hosur Road, Near Old Checkpost, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095 Represented by its Partners Mr. Abdul Subhan, Mrs. Shaheen Bano and Mr. Syed Abdul Aleem.
2. Mr. Abdul Subhan S/o. Mohammed Faqruddin Aged about 58 years, Residing at No.292, KEB Layout, Ashwath Nagar, RMV II Stage, Bangalore-560029.
3. Mrs. Shaheen Bano W/o. Late S.A.Wajid Aged about 56 years, Residing at No.4/13, 2nd Main, 8th Cross, 1st Stage, BMT Layout, Bangalore-560029 Also at No.150/1 and 2, Hosur Road, Near Old Checkpost, Kormangala, Bangalore-560095.
4. Mr. Syed Abdul Aleem S/o. Late Syed Abdul Basith Aged about 49 years, Residing at No.112, 5th Main, 23rd Cross, HSR 7th Sector, Bangalore-560095.
All represented by SPA Holder, Mr. Imtyaz Ahmed Khan.
(By Sri. Prakash M Patil, Advocate) AND:
Smt. Manu Srinivas W/o. Srinivas Kakarla Aged about 39 years, Residing at:
‘Ranka Court Apartments’ No.542, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008.
(By Sri. Srinandan K, for Sri. H. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for C/R) **** …Appellants …Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated:20.03.2019 passed in O.S.No.7837/2015 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, (CCH No.42), partly decreeing the suit for vacant and peaceful possession.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The matter was called again in the afternoon. Learned counsel from both side present.
2. One Sri. Imtyaz Ahmed Khan said to be the Special Power of Attorney holder for the appellant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and identified by the learned counsel for the appellants is also present. The respondent who is present in person, is identified by her learned counsel.
3. Both parties file a compromise petition under Order XXIII, Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. Heard the submission from both side and perused the compromise petition filed by both side.
5. Learned counsels from both side submit that the compromise has been entered into out of the free consent and volition of the parties keeping their best interest under consideration.
6. After enquiry with the parties, it is convinced to the Court that the parties have settled the matter and entered into a compromise out of their free consent, volition and keeping their best interest under consideration.
7. The present appellants have challenged the judgment and decree passed against them in O.S.No.7837/2015, partly decreeing the suit filed by the present respondent for ejectment and directing the defendants therein (appellants herein) to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment, i.e.20-03-2019.
8. Under the said compromise petition, both the parties have stated that the appellants consider and recognise the respondent as the absolute owner of the schedule property and the appellants will be handing over the schedule property within two months i.e. on or before 15-09-2019 to the respondent and the respondent is also shown to have agreed to the said terms of settlement. Both parties have prayed for confirming the judgment and decree under challenge.
9. The above terms settled between the parties since not being violative of any provision of law and since the Court is convinced that the parties have compromised the matter keeping their best interest under consideration and with free consent, the appeal can be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. Accordingly, it is recorded that the appellants herein have undertaken to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the vacant suit schedule premises to the respondent on or before 15-09-2019.
With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of as settled between the parties.
The refund of Court Fee paid, if any, to the appellants would be in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*