IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.349/2007 C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.406/2007 IN RFA NO.349/2007:
BETWEEN:
Sri. Abdul Wahab, S/o A. Khuddus, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.242, 19th Cross, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. ... Appellant (By Smt. Budrunnisa, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Padmamma W/o late T.Venkatesh, Aged about 49 years, R/at No.279, I Block, 19th Cross, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.
2. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. …Respondents (By Sri. M.B.Chandrachooda, Advocate for C/R1; Sri. I.G.Gachchinamath, Advocate for R-2) This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.2070/1994 on the file of the IX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.10) decreeing the suit for permanent injunction.
IN RFA NO.406/2007:
BETWEEN:
Sri. Abdul Wahab, S/o A. Khuddus, Aged about 60 years, R/at No.242, 19th Cross, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. ... Appellant (By Smt. Budrunnisa, Advocate) AND:
1. Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. Represented by its Secretary.
2. Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru – 560 020. Represented by its Commissioner.
3. The Secretary to Government, Department of Housing And Urban Development, Karnataka Government Secretariat, M.S. Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
4. Smt. Padmamma, W/o T.Venkatesh, Major, R/at No.279, 19th Cross, I Block, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 032. …Respondents (By Sri. M.B.Chandrachooda, Advocate for C/R4;
Sri. G.M.Anand, Advocate for R-1 and R-2; R-3 is Served) This R.F.A. is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.7473/2000 on the file of the IX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH.No.10) dismissing the suit for permanent injunction.
These appeals are coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T In this first appeal, an application in I.A.1/17 is filed by the first respondent reporting settlement arrived at between the appellant and the first respondent in terms of agreement dated 27.1.2017 reduced into between them during pendency of this appeal.
2. Admittedly, this first appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.2070/1994 connected with O.S.No.7473/2000. The suit in O.S.No.2070/1994 was filed for the relief of declaration and possession of portion of the suit property and the suit in O.S.No.7473/2000 was filed for permanent injunction.
3. It is seen that the suit in O.S.No.2070/1994 is decreed, against which defendant in the said suit who is also plaintiff in O.S.No.7473/2000, has filed these appeals. During the Pendency of the appeals, it is stated that the settlement is arrived at between the parties. The terms of the compromise is reduced into writing in the form of I.A.1/17. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that in terms of the agreement dated 27.1.2017, the first respondent has paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant herein and in turn, the appellant has vacated the property in his possession which was the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.2070/1994 and after taking possession of the property, it is stated that the same is demolished and reconstruction is stated have taken on the said property. To substantiate the same, copy of the agreement and photographs showing the stage of construction on the disputed property is also produced. Respondent No.1 is present before the Court along with the counsel. So far as the appellant is concerned, he is absent and he is stated to be not well. However, the counsel for the appellant who is before the Court would submit that there is indeed a settlement between the parties and the appellant has received the money and delivered the possession of the property.
4. Placing the submission of both the parties, this appeal in R.F.A.No.349/2007 is dismissed as withdrawn.
In view of the appeal in R.F.A.No.349/2007 being dismissed, appeal in R.F.A.No.406/2007 which is filed by the very same appellant for allowing of his suit in O.S.No.7473/2000, will also not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* Ct-vbs