IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2023/2017 BETWEEN:
1. K.V. Rukmini Bhat W/o late Dr. K. Vasudeva Bhat, Aged about 74 years.
2. Srinivas Bhat, S/o late Dr. K. Vasudeva Bhat, Aged about 52 years.
3. K.V. Krishna Bhat S/o late Dr. K. Vasudeva Bhat, Aged about 45 years.
All are R/at No.192, Ch-2, Subbaiah Road, Chamaraja Mohalla, Mysuru.
All are working at No.1225/A M2/A, “Srinivas Medical Stores”
Irwin Road, Mysuru – 570 001.
…Appellants (By Sri Manmohan P.N, Advocate) AND:
Smt. M.V. Hemavathi W/o Mohan K Aged about 61 years, R/at B206, Brigade Solitaire, 147, 3rd Main, Alanahalli, Mysuru – 570 001.
... Respondent (By Sri Sharath S. Gowda, Advocate for C/Respondent) This RSA is filed under Section 100 of the CPC 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2017 passed in RA No.119/2017 (Old No.179/2016) on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Mysuru, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016 passed in O.S. No.1159/2012 on the file of the Principal First Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, at Mysuru.
This RSA coming on for Admission, this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Pursuant to submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties yesterday i.e., 06.12.2017 and their exploring the possibility of a settlement in the matter and thereafter submitting that dispute between the parties are amicably resolved, appeal has been listed for admission today.
2. This appeal is filed by defendants in O.S. No.1159/2012 assailing judgment and decree in R.A. No.119/2017 by the III Additional District Judge, Mysuru dated 08.07.2017 by which, judgment and decree passed by Principal First Civil Judge and JMFC, at Mysuru dated 03.08.2016 in O.S.No.1159/2012 has been confirmed. By that decree, defendants were ordered to vacate and handover vacant possession of suit schedule premises to plaintiff and plaintiff has been permitted to retain a sum of `16,000/- stated to be the premium amount towards damages.
3. Learned counsel for respective parties submit that after negotiations, they have arrived at settlement of the dispute.
4. Appellants’ counsel submits that appellants would not press the appeal if they are granted some time to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the Caveator/respondent. He submits that time may be granted till 30.11.2018 and during that period, appellants would not create any third party interest and would continue to pay `3,650/- per month as rent. Learned counsel for appellants further submits that `16,000/-, which is with respondent may be retained by him. Appellants’ counsel submits that an affidavit of undertaking has been filed by appellants.
5. In response, learned Caveator/respondent would submit that appellants may be pinned down to the terms of undertaking as has been submitted before this Court and that appellants ought not to harass respondent having given an undertaking before this Court.
6. In the circumstances, affidavit of undertaking filed by appellants is taken on record. Appeal filed by appellants is disposed of subject to the following conditions:
(i) Appellants are granted time till 30.11.2018 to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to respondent and during the said period, appellants shall pay rent of `3,650/- per month regularly to respondent.
(ii) Appellants shall not create any third party interest during the said period and neither cause any loss, hardship or injury to respondent by damaging the premises or in any other manner.
(iii) Respondent is also permitted to retain `16,000/-, which is the premium amount paid by appellants at the time of taking possession of the premises.
(iv) Appellants shall vacate on or before 30.11.2018 without driving respondent to continue the Execution Petition already filed by her.
The appeal is disposed of as not pressed subject to the aforesaid terms.
As the appeal is disposed of at the initial stage, Registry is directed to refund 75% of the Court fee paid by appellants in terms of Section 66 (2) (c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Amended Act, 2014).
Liberty is reserved to the respondent to seek withdrawal of the Execution Petition or any other appropriate order in EP No.364/2017.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2017 also stands disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-