IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO R.F.A.No. 1315/2014 BETWEEN T.SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O M.L.THAMMANNA, MUDDURAMMA LAYOUT, SUNKADAKATTE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 091. ... APPELLANT (By Sri R.MAHESH, ADV. ) AND SMT. RUKMINI R., W/O S.J.JAVARIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.70, 6TH MAIN ROAD, HVR LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 079. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri RAGHAVENDRA M.H., ADV. FOR C/R) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.08.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4254/2010 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH.18), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, B.S.PATIL J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2014 passed in O.S.No.4254/2010 by the learned XIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru. As per the judgment and decree passed, suit filed by plaintiff - respondent herein has been decreed directing payment of a sum of Rs.11,87,800/- with future simple interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.7,70,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.
2. Defendant in trial Court is the appellant before this Court. Both parties have settled their dispute and have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
3. Plaintiff – Smt Rukmini R. is present before the Court. Her husband Sri S.J.Javaraiah is also present. They are identified by the learned counsel for caveator / respondent – Sri Jayaramaiah. Similarly, Sri T. Srinivasamurthy S/o M.L.Thammanna, defendant – appellant is present before the Court and is identified by the learned counsel for appellant - Sri R. Mahesh.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the compromise petition filed.
5. As per the compromise petition, plaintiff has agreed to receive a total sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as against the suit claim in full and final settlement of the entire dispute. Indeed, Smt. Rukmini R. – respondet submits that the compromise has been duly arrived at and she has set her signature to the compromise petition after understanding the contents. Similarly, appellant has brought two demand drafts for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- and is ready with cash of Rs.1,00,000/-. He agrees to hand over demand drafts and to pay cash in the Court. Accordingly, two demand drafts for a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and cash of Rs.1,00,000/- totally amounting Rs.11,00,000/- has been paid and the receipt has been acknowledged in the Court in the presence of both the lawyers.
6. We are of the view that there is no legal impediment to record the compromise. Hence, this compromise petition and the compromise arrived at is recorded. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise. Decree shall be drawn as per the terms of compromise.
Registry is directed to refund 75% of the Court fee paid on the appeal memo as per the provisions of Section 66(2)(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958 as amended by Act 09 of 2015.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE VP