IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.610/2018 (POS) BETWEEN:
1. SRI KRISHNA ACHARY S/O CHENNAPPA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SMT.SUNDARY W/O KRISHNA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. SMT.BHAGYA D/O KRISHNA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. SMT.ARATHI D/O KRISHNA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 5. SMT.BHARATHI D/O KRISHNA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MANJUGERI IN KANYADI II DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE & POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. – 574 214 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI G.H.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SAROJINI RAO W/O LATE U.BHOJA RAO AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS R/AT PONGAR KANYADI II DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.– 574 214 2. SMT.NETHRAVATHI D/O KRISHNA ACHARY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT MANJUGERI IN KANYADI II DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE & POST BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K.–574 214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY IN R.A.NO.12/2012 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., BELTHANGADY, D.K. IN O.S.NO.164/2003.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Appellate No.2 and General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.1 are present. Counsel on both sides are present. Appellate No.2 and General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.1 are duly identified by their respective Counsel.
2. Appellants’ Counsel produces copy of Special Power of Attorney executed by appellant Nos.1, 3 to 5 and respondent No.2 in favour of appellant No.2. Both parties filed joint memo reporting settlement of the matter out of Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants also files affidavit of appellants undertaking to vacate and handover possession of the suit schedule property in terms of the compromise memo.
3. Heard on the joint memo. Appellate No.2 and General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.1 admitted execution of joint memo. Under the joint memo, the appellants have agreed to vacate the suit schedule property on or before 22.06.2019 and hand over possession to respondent No.1.
4. Satisfied that compromise is admissible under law. Therefore the compromise is recorded. The appeal is allowed in terms of compromise petition/joint memo. The impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below are modified in terms of the compromise petition. Draw decree accordingly.
In view of allowing of the appeal, IA No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration therefore disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR