IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.627 OF 2013 (SP) BETWEEN:
M/s.PETRO ENGINEERING AND SPECIALITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NARAYANA SMRITI, NO.446, B1/A, SHANIWARPET, PUNE – 411 030, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.L.SUBRAMANYAM S/O A.LOKANATH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT NO.354/B, 4TH MAIN, GOKULAM II STAGE, MYSURU – 570 001. A.L.SUBRAMANYAM SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs:
(a) Sri RAJKUMAR, S/O A.L.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
(b) Sri SHIVAKUMAR, S/O A.L.SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.354/B, 4TH MAIN, GOKULAM II STAGE, MYSURU – 570 001. ...APPELLANTS (By Sri VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI P.DALJITRAM CHOWDARY S/O SRI P.PRABHURAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.2645/5, II MAIN, TEMPLE ROAD, VANIVILASAPURAM MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Ms.VARSHA HITTINHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR Sri LOMESH KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR INDUS LAW) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.02.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.226/2007 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
* * * * JUDGMENT When the matter was listed on the last occasion, learned counsel for the respective parties submitted that the parties have arrived at a settlement and they would report settlement today. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that the parties are reporting settlement and that they have filed a memorandum of compromise petition. They submit that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. The parties are present in the Court. They have been identified by their respective counsel. The parties submit that they have arrived at a settlement of the dispute on their own free volition without there being any undue influence or coercion from any quarter. They submit that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
3. It is noted that the plaintiff in O.S.No.226 of 2007 has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit and the decreeing of O.S.No.1207 of 2007 by a common judgment dated 01.02.2013 by the Principal Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff. By the said judgment, the suit for seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement filed by the plaintiff was dismissed while the suit filed by the defendant seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property was decreed. During the pendency of this appeal, the parties have arrived at a settlement and they have filed the compromise petition delineating the terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties. The compromise petition is taken on record. It is signed by the legal representatives of the deceased appellant as well as the respondent. The terms of the compromise petition reads as under:
“6. At this juncture, the appellants, the Company Petro Engineering and Specialities Private Limited and the respondent are inclined to settle all the claims against each other, on the following conditions:
i) The Agreement to Sell entered into between the parties dated 01.06.1999 stands terminated and so the lease of the Respondent with M/s.Petro Engineering and Specialities Products Private Limited also stands terminated. The appellants or M/s.Petro Engineering and Specialities Products Private Limited have no rights whatsoever under the said Agreement to Sell.
ii) The respondent herein is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property and has all the rights to dispose the schedule property to whomsoever and in the manner he wishes to. The appellants or M/s.Petro Engineering and Specialities Products Private Limited will have no right whatsoever on the schedule property.
iii) The vacant possession of the schedule property has been delivered to the respondent as directed in the Execution Petition No.56 of 2013 and the same has been delivered on 16.03.2019. The appellants and M/s.Petro Engineering and Specialities Products Private Limited hereby undertake not to interfere with the possession of the respondent and will not raise any claim as against the said schedule property.
iv) The respondent shall be entitled to take the original Lease Deed dated 06.04.1998 and the original Agreement to Sell dated 01.06.1999, and the appellant shall have no right over the said originals.
v) The respondent hereby agrees to give up the claim of INR.45,50,000/- as ordered in the F.D.P.No.7 of 2013 and undertakes not to raise any claim as against the appellant hereinafter in respect of the same.
vi) The respondent’s father had filed a complaint as against Mr.Rajkumar.S., one of the appellants, and the Criminal Revision Petition bearing Crl.R.P.No.273 of 2016 is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent’s father undertakes to withdraw the same. Also, Mr.Rajkumar.S. hereby agrees to withdraw the Criminal Revision Petition bearing Crl.R.P.No.825 of 2015 filed against the father of the respondent herein.
vii) The appellants or M/s.Petro Engineering and Specialities Products Private Limited shall make no claim or seek refund of any monies from the respondent as against the amounts already paid under the Agreement to Sell and/or the Lease Deed, as the same are deemed to be adjusted towards the rent under the Lease Deed.
7. The appellants are at liberty to withdrawn the amount of INR.18,30,000/- deposited in O.S.No.226 of 2007 along with interest, if any accrued thereon, and Mr.Rajkumar.S., is at liberty to withdraw INR.5,17,500/- and INR.1,00,000/- deposited by him in C.C.No.2038 of 2007 and Cr.R.P.No.825 of 2015, after the disposal of the above appeal.
8. The respondent agrees to pay a sum of INR.3,00,000/- towards Court cost incurred by appellants or by M/s.Petro Engineering and Specialities Products Private Limited through cheque No.316134 drawn on Axis Bank, Mysuru on this day.
9. Both parties agree and understand that the dispute between the parties mentioned herein are fully and finally settled between them and neither party to the appeal, or any party claiming through them, shall have any claim or be entitled to institute any legal proceedings against each other in any of the Courts pertaining to this dispute and the schedule property.
The parties submit that they shall abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise.
4. Having perused the terms and conditions of the compromise petition, we find that the same are lawful and that there is no legal impediment for permitting the parties to settle the dispute in terms of the compromise arrived at between them.
5. In the circumstances, the common judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
Since the appeal has been disposed of by way of a settlement before the commencement of the final hearing, the appellant is entitled to refund of 75% of the Court-fee in terms of Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The refund shall be paid to appellant(a) namely, Sri.Rajkumar.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.1 of 2013 stands disposed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DH