IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1157/2018 (RES) BETWEEN:
P. SRINIVASA RAO S/O LATE PANDU RANGA RAO S. AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.1864, ANESAROT ROAD DEVARAJA MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 005 …APPELLANT (BY SRI C.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
WAHIDA KHATUN W/O MOHAMMED SADULLA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1. SHAFEEQ AHMED S/O LATE WAHIDA KHATOON AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.228, CLEAR RIVER P1 CARY N.C.27519 USA 2. MANSOOR MOHAMMED S/O LATE WAHIDA KHATOON AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.1512, ROLPH TERRACE MILTON ONL9T7C8, CANADA 3. NISHATH AFZA S/O LATE WAHIDA KHATOON AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.209, 7TH CROSS TANK ROAD N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 005 4. MOHAMMED SADULLA S/O LATE ABDUL RASOOL AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/AT NO.181/A, 7TH CROSS TANK ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 005 5. VASANTHA BAI D/O LATE PANDU RANGA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 6. SHIVAJI RAO S/O LATE PANDU RANGA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 7. VASANTHA W/O LATE VENUGOPALA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 8. KUMAR S/O LATE VENUGOPALA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 9. SHOBHA BAI D/O LATE PANDU RANGA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R5 TO R9 ARE R/AT NO.4558, NO.D-14 ST.MARY’S ROAD, N.R.MOHALLA MYSURU – 570 005 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 & R4; NOTICE TO R5 TO R9 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 13.03.2019) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU IN R.A.NO.246/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.07.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN O.S.NO.1663/2007.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Sri P.N.Manmohan, learned Counsel files power for respondent No.2.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks dispensation of notice to respondent Nos.5 to 9. Record shows that respondent Nos.5 to 9 did not challenge the decree of ejectment passed by the trial Court against them. Therefore, dispensation sought is granted.
3. Appellant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are present before Court. They are duly identified by their respective Counsel. Respondent No.4 is power of attorney holder of respondent No.2.
4. Compromise petition on behalf of the parties is filed. In the compromise petition, appellant seeks extension of time to vacate the premises upto 12.09.2019 and agrees to pay damages of Rs.10,000/-
per month for the said period of six months or till he vacates the premises.
5. Satisfied that compromise is lawful.
Therefore the compromise is recorded. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below are modified in terms of the compromise petition.
The rate of damages agreed between the parties in this case shall not influence fixation of damages in case if plaintiff sues for mesne profits. It is made clear that in enquiry for mesne profits, this order shall not be treated as concession of the parties on rate of mesne profits.
Draw decree accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR