IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH R.F.A.No.1879/2013 (PAR) BETWEEN:
1. S. RAGHAVENDRAN S/O. LATE K. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. PRASANNA RAGHAVENDRAN S/O. S. RAGHAVENDRAN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT No.134 24TH A MAIN ROAD 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, ADV. AND MS. MANASA B. RAO, ADV.) AND:
1. S. KUPPU RAO S/O. LATE K. SRINIVASAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT No.23, 2ND MAIN ROAD SHAKTINAGAR MYSURU-570 019.
2. SMT. INDIRA MURTHY D/O. K. SRINIVASAN W/O. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT No.1334, 24TH MAN 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 069. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, ADV. FOR R1 SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2808/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Parties and their respective counsel are present before the Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo stating that parties have settled the dispute between them in CRP No.443/2012 C/W CRP No.423/2012. In terms of the said settlement, the key of schedule premises is handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this appeal today before the Court and he acknowledges the same.
3. I.A.No.1/2019 for impleading the applicants in the present appeal is pending before the Court. Learned counsel for the impleading applicants claims that there was a sale agreement in their favour and they may be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the contention of the impleading applicants that there is a sale agreement in their favour, they have to work out their remedy based on the said sale agreement, before the appropriate forum. Hence, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
5. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and also the memo filed by the appellants’ counsel, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR