IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1558 OF 2005 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1837 OF 2005 In RFA No.1558/2005 BETWEEN Smt. Lakshmidevamma, W/o. Late Sri. R.Narayanaswamy Reddy, Aged about 71 years, Represented by GPA Holder, S/o. Late Sri. R. Narayanaswamy Reddy, R/at Nelaguli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
…Appellant (By Sri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. Gowramma, W/o. Sri. Venkata Reddy, R/at. Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
Since dead by LRs.
a) Sri. Venkata Reddy, Husband of Gowramma, b) Sri. Gopala Reddy, S/o. Sri. Venkata Reddy, c) Smt. Pushpa, D/o. Sri. Venkata Reddy, d) Sri. Prabhakara Reddy, S/o.Sri. Venkata Reddy, All are R/at Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
2. Smt. Balanagamma, W/o. Late Sri. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 70 years, R/at Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
…Respondents (By Sri. B.Chethan, Advocate for R1(a-d) and R2) This RFA is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2005 passed in O.S.No.2051/92 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28), dismissing the suit for declaration and possession.
In RFA No.1837/2005 BETWEEN 1. Gowramma, W/o. Sri Venkata Reddy, R/at. Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
Since dead by LRs.
a) Venkata Reddy, Husband of Late Gowramma, b) Gopal Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, c) Puspa, D/o. Late Venkata Reddy, d) Prabhakara Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Reddy, All are R/at Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru-78.
2. Balanagamma, W/o. Narayana Reddy, Major, R/at Jaraganahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk.
(By Sri. B.Chethan, Advocate) AND Lakshmidevamma, W/o. R.Narayanaswamy Reddy, Aged about 71 years, R/at Nelaguli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru-560 078.
…Appellants …Respondent (By Sri. R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate) This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 04.08.2005 passed in O.S.No.2051/92 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-28), dismissing the suit of the respondent herein for declaration and possession and also dismissing the counter claim of the appellant herein.
These appeals coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDERS ON COMPROMISE PETITION The appellant in RFA 1558/2005, Smt. Lakshmidevamma is respondent in RFA 1837/2005. On her behalf an application under Order III Rule 2 of CPC as per I.A. 1/2019 is filed by her counsel. Since Lakshmidevamma has appointed one Sri. N.Jagan Mohan Reddy as her power of attorney; the said application has been filed to permit power of attorney holder to represent Lakshmidevamma in both the appeals. GPA is produced. To meet the ends of justice the said application is allowed and power of attorney holder is permitted to represent Lakshmidevamma in both the appeals.
2. The Power of Attorney Sri N.Jaganmohana Reddy and the legal representatives of respondent no.1(a) namely Sri Gopala Reddy, Smt.Pushpa and Prabhakara Reddy and also respondent no.2-Smt.
Balanagamma in RFA 1558/2005 present a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in relation to both the appeals. The advocates of the parties are also present. The GPA authorizes N.Jagan Mohan Reddy to enter into compromise.
3. The contents of the compromise petition are explained and read over to the parties in Kannada language. They submit that they are aware of the contents of the compromise and that they have voluntarily entered into the compromise without any kind of force or compulsion from anybody else. Today the Power of Attorney Holder of Lakshmidevamma receives Rs.20,00,000/- by way of cheque drawn on State Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch from the respondents. Lakshmidevamma has agreed to execute the sale deed within one month in favour of respondent no. 1(d), i..e, Sri Prabhakara Reddy. The respondents 1(b) and (c) have no objection for sale deed being executed in favour of R1(d) Prabhakara Reddy in respect of suit property. The terms of this compromise are lawful and therefore the same is accepted. Draw decree accordingly in relation to both the appeals. These two appeals stand disposed of in terms of compromise.
Sd/- JUDGE ckl