IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR R.F.A No.116/2012 Between:
Sri Sudhakara Reddy K s/o Muddukrishna Reddy Aged about 55 years R/a No.103, Vars All Seasons Apartments 4th Cross, Konena Agrahara Off Airport Road Bangalore-560 017. . Appellant (By Sri M S Varadarajan, Advocate) And :
1. H A Krishnappa s/o late Annayyappa Aged about 65 years.
2. K Muniraju s/o H A Krishnappa Age: 41 years.
3. K Srinivasa s/o H A Krishnappa Age 31 years.
4. H K Ramesh Kumar s/o H A Krishnappa Age 27 years.
Respondents 1 to 4 are r/at Besthara Beedi Kurubarapete Hosakote Town-562114.
5. V Venkatakrishna Reddy s/o Venkatarami Reddy aged about 47 years r/at Pent House Vars Ferndald Apartments Kodihalli, Bangalore-560068.
(Respondent No.5 is deleted v/c/o dtd:11.1.2019) ..Respondents (By Sri D R Sundaresh, Advocate for R1 to R4, Sri A Madhusudhana Rao, Advocate for R5) This RFA is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed in OS No.1954/2008 on the file of the Presiding Office, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore, decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction.
This RFA coming on for orders this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the plaintiffs. They filed OS No.1954/2008 for declaration and injunction. The said suit came to be decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are absolute owners and in possession of the suit schedule property. This has been assailed by defendant No.1.
2. A memo has been filed on 11.1.2019 with a prayer to permit the appellant to delete respondent No.5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that he has no objection to accept the same. Respondent No.5 is ordered to be deleted.
3. Both the learned Advocates along with their parties have filed memorandum of compromise petition under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Both the learned Advocates submit that this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the memorandum of compromise petition. The parties, who appeared before Court, are identified by the respective learned counsel. The memorandum of compromise petition reads thus:
“1. The Appellant has filed the above appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 31-10-2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in OS No.1954/2008. At the instance of the well wishers, the Appellant and Respondents 1 to 4 have mutually agreed to resolve the controversies involved in the above appeal in the manner stated hereunder:
2. Respondent No.2 to 4 along with their respective family members, have executed a registered sale deed dated 10.12.2018 registered as Document No.HSK-1- 08568/2018-19 stored in CD No.HSKD667 registered in the office of the Sub-registrar Hoskote in favour of the Appellant in respect of the Suit Schedule Property and Respondent No.1 along with the other family members have affixed their signatures as confirming parties to the said sale deed.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 have handed over the vacant possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the appellant at the time of the execution of the registered sale deed dated 10.12.2018, and they further affirm that they have no rights whatsoever over the suit schedule property and that the Appellate is entitled to be in possession of the suit schedule property as its absolute owner.
4. Respondent No.1 to 4 do hereby authorize the appellant to seek return of the documents pertaining to the Suit Schedule Property from this Hon’ble court and the appellant is entitled to receive the said documents from the Hon’ble court by filing necessary application.
5. The Appellant and Respondents do hereby pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to dispose the Regular First Appeal in terms of the compromise petition and modifying and substitution of the judgment and decree passed by the court below in the interest of justice and equity.”
4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 along with respective family members have executed a registered sale deed dated 10.12.2018 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Hoskote in favour of the appellant in respect of the suit schedule property and respondent No.1 along with other family members have consented for execution of the said sale deed. In view of execution of the sale deed, the appellant has acquired ownership and the respondents have handed over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the appellant. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the appeal stands disposed of.
5. The judgment and decree dated 31.10.2011 passed in OS No.1954/2008 on the file of the Presiding Office, Fast Track Court-V, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore, decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction stands set aside. The compromise entered into between the parties is to be treated as decree.
The Registry to draw decree accordingly.
Since the parties have entered into compromise, the court fee paid in this appeal is directed to be refunded. The Registry is directed to do the needful.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.