IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD RFA NO.254/2017 (SP) BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G V SRIDHAR S/O SRI VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SMT SHYALAJA SRIDHAR W/O SRI G V SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 3. SRI G S SHESHASAI S/O SRI G V SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 4. SRI G V GOPINATH S/O SRI G T VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 5. SMT RADHA GOPINATH W/O SRI G V GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS APPELLANT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO 11, BASAPPA LAYOUT GAVIPURAM EXTENSION HANUMANTHANAGAR,BANGALORE - 560019 6. SRI M K NARAYANA S/O SRI M S KRISHNAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1 GROUND FLOOR (OLD No.258) SAI AMRUTHA SREE APARTMENT FLAT NO 202, 2ND FLOOR 9TH MAIN ROAD, S R NAGAR BANGALORE – 560027.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADV.) AND SRI. J L VENKATESH S/O LATE J LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS REPRESENTED BY IS GPA HOLDER SUDRSHAN MURTHY RESIDING AT NO 107, 3RD CROSS ROAD BASAVESHWARANAGAR BEML LAYOUT,BANGALORE - 560079 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B J MAHESH, ADV. FOR R1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.11.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1781/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Amended memorandum of appeal has been filed by appellants’ counsel. The same is taken on record.
2. Though this appeal is listed for orders, learned counsel for the respective parties submit that this appeal was referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre (BMC) and the parties have mediated and negotiated a settlement before the Bangalore Mediation Centre and that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.1781/2007 by the II Addl. Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Respondent-plaintiff had filed the said suit seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 18.3.2005 by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.20,00,500/- in respect of the suit schedule properties. By judgment and decree dated 04.11.2016, the said suit was decreed in part with costs. Being aggrieved, the defendant Nos.5 to 10 in the suit have preferred this appeal.
4. As already noted, this matter was referred to Bangalore Mediation Centre and the parties have arrived at a settlement. Bangalore Mediation Centre has filed its report along with the memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005.
5. Learned counsel for the respective parties submit that judgment and decree impugned in this appeal may be modified in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties herein. Parties are also present. Learned counsel for the appellants has identified each of the appellants. Respondent is represented by his General Power of Attorney holder, Sri.M.Sudharshan Murthy, who is present in the Court and is identified by learned counsel for the respondent. Parties jointly submitted that they have arrived at a settlement before the Bangalore Mediation Centre on their own free volition without there being any undue influence or coercion from any side. They submit that the appeal may be disposed off in terms of the settlement.
6. We have taken on record the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at between the parties before the Bangalore Mediation Centre. The terms of the settlement read as under:
“TERMS:
1. That, both parties agreed that, not withstanding the terms of the sale deeds dated:30.09.2005 (Document No.16711/2005- 06), Sale deed dated:30.11.2006 (Document No.31905/2006-07), Sale Deed dated:30.11.2006 (Document No.31920/2006- 07), and Sale deed dated:30.11.20016 (Document No.31912/2006-07) executed by the Respondent No.2 to 5 and others in favour of the Appellants herein the Appellants and Respondent No.1 herein have agreed to sell the suit schedule property jointly in favour of the intended purchasers and to share the sale consideration among themselves at the ratio of 40:60 i.e.., the appellants are entitled for 40% of the sale consideration and respondent No.1 is entitled for the remaining 60% of the sale proceeds.
2. That, both parties agree that the appellants and respondent No.1 are at liberty to get/identify the prospective purchaser for the suit schedule property. However, negotiations pertaining to the terms of sale shall be done jointly by the appellants and the respondent No.1.
3. That, both parties agree that in the event of either the appellants or the respondent No.1 intends to retain the entire suit schedule property they can propose to purchase the same for a sale consideration which is acceptable to the other party and then such party who intends to purchase shall pay such portion/share as agreed above, to the other party.
4. That, in case the appellants intend to retain the suit schedule property, they shall pay 60% of the agreed sale consideration to the respondent No.1 and in that event, the respondent No.1 shall execute the required deed of conveyance in favour of the appellants or his/their nominee, as desired by the appellants. However, cost/expenses for registration of such conveyance deed shall be borne by the appellants. Further the respondent No.1 has agreed to deliver the original title deeds which were handed over to him by the respondent Nos.2 to 5, in favour of the appellants while executing the deed of conveyance.
5. That, if the respondent No.1 intends to retain the suit schedule property, the respondent No.1 shall pay 40% of the agreed sale consideration to the appellants and in that event, the appellants shall execute necessary deed of conveyance in favour of the respondent No.1 or his nominee as desired by the respondent No.1. However, cost/expenses for registration of such conveyance deed shall be borne by the respondent No.1. Further, the appellants have agreed to deliver the original sale deeds dated: 30.09.2005 (Document No.16711/2005-06), Sale deed dated: 30.11.2006 (Document No.31905/2006-07), Sale Deed dated: 30.11.2006 (Document No.31920/2006-07) and Sale Deed dated: 30.11.2006 (Document No.31912/2006-07) in favour of the appellants.
6. That, in view of the settlement arrived between the appellants and the respondent No.1, the appellants have agreed to seek for deletion of respondent Nos.2 to 5 from the above appeal before the Hon’ble high Court. However, either the appellants or the respondent No.1 have no claims of whatsoever nature against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
7. That, both the appellants and respondent No.1 shall make honest and prompt effort to get the prospective purchaser and to complete the sale transaction, as early as possible.
8. That, in view of the above settlement, both parties respectfully pray that the instant appeal may kindly be disposed of in terms of this settlement agreement.
II. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the parties pray for refund of the full institution fee paid in R.F.A.254/2017 and also prays for refund of the fee in this appeal.
III. Parties will appear before this Court on …………….…. for passing decree/orders in terms of the agreement.”
7. On perusal of the same, we find that the terms of the settlement are lawful and there is no legal impediment for accepting the same.
8. In the circumstances, this appeal is disposed off in terms of the settlement arrived at between parties. Consequently, the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is modified in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
9. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the suit have lost right, title and interest in respect of the suit schedule properties.
10. Since the matter has been settled prior to the commencement of hearing of this appeal, office is directed to return 75% of the amount of Court fee paid on this appeal to appellant No.1 after due verification as per the provision of K.C.F. & S.V. Act, 1958.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE DM/-