IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO R.S.A.No.681/2011 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.V HARINI W/O LATE MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. KUM.KAVYA D/O LATE SRI MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS ( A MINOR BEING REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT.V. HARINI HER NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN BUT NOW ATTAINED MAJORITY).
APPELLANTS No.1 & 2 ARE R/AT No.21, “CHANDRALA” RAMAKRISHNANAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 086.
(BY SRI H R NARAYANA RAO FOR …APPELLANTS M/S. GOUTAM AND RAJESWAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI P NARAYANACHAR S/O SETHUMADHAVACHAR AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
2. SMT.PADMAVATHI K N W/O SRI P NARAYANACHAR AGE:MAJOR.
BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/A VADIRAJA BHYRAPURA EXTENSION TRIVENI NAGAR T NARASIPUR – 571 124.
(BY SRI G PRASHANTH, FOR M/S.PRAMOG ASSOCIATES FOR R1 & 2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:23.11.2010 PASSED IN R.A.No.1187/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MYSORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:1.9.2009 PASSED IN O.S.No.9/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) T. NARASIPURA.
THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated:23.11.2010 passed in R.A.No.1187/ 2009 by the I Additional District Judge at Mysore.
2. Both the appellants and respondents are present before the court and their presence is placed on record.
3. The appellant No.1 and appellant No.2 are present. It is stated that when the suit was filed, the present appellant No.2 as plaintiff No.2 aged about 9 years and 11 years when the appeal was filed. Thus, she was represented by natural guardian, her mother. Now that by virtue of attaining majority on her completing 18 years, Sri. H.R.Narayana Rao on behalf of M/s Gautam and Rajeswar, learned counsel for appellants files an application under order XXXII Rule 2 of CPC to discharge the guardian of appellant No.2 and allow her to represent by herself in the proceedings and numbered as I.A.No.1/2019.
4. Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, I.A.No.1/2019, is allowed. The guardianship of appellant No.2 is discharged and she is permitted to prosecute the case on her own.
5. Learned counsel Sri. H.R.Narayana Rao, files vakalath for appellant No.2 and the same is taken on record.
6. The learned counsel for both parties filed joint compromise petition dated 31.01.2019 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC duly signed by the parties and identified by them and prays that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition.
7. The compromise petition dated 31.01.2019 is as under:
“ The appellants and respondents jointly submit as follows:
1. On 17/01/2019 this Hon’ble Court taking into consideration the close relationship between the parties counselled both the parties to arrange for a joint meeting so as to arrive at an amicable solution to sort out the differences that have crept into the relationship. Accordingly, both the parties have discuss the matter and amicably arrived at the following terms of settlement.
a. That the respondents have agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) to the appellants in full and final settlement of their suit claim which the appellants have agreed to receive in full and final settlement the claim made by them in O.S.No.09/2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, T. Narasipura;
b. That the respondents tender demand drafts, details of which are furnished by way of a separate Memo for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in the name of the 1st appellant payable at Bengaluru, the receipt of which the appellants admit and acknowledge.
c. With the above payment made to the appellants, the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009 passed in O.S.No.09/2003 by the Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), T.Narasipura, is fully satisfied and the appellants have no further claims in the matter.
d. The appellants withdraw this second appeal in view of the above settlement.
e. The respondents are entitled to deal with the suit schedule properties as they choose and the appellants have no claims whatsoever in respect of the suit schedule properties. Except for the relationship because of marriage and consanguinity there is no other economic or other relationship between the parties. Similarly, the respondents have no claims against the appellants. With this compromise petition all the disputes of whatsoever nature between the parties is fully and finally settled. There are no other claims against each other.
2. In view of the settlement arrived at it is just and necessary the above appeal is disposed off in terms of this settlement. It is made abundantly clear that with the payment made under this joint compromise petition, the decree, dated 01/09/2009 in O.S.No.09/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), T. Narasipura, is fully and finally settled and the satisfaction of the decree may be recorded as such.”
Wherefore, the appellants and respondents jointly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above appeal as settled and consequently record the full satisfaction of the decree dated 01/09/2009 in O.S.No.09/2003 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) T. Narasipura, in terms of this compromise petition directing the parties to pay their own costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”
8. Learned counsel for respondents filed a memo dated 31.1.2019 by producing details of demand draft drawn in favour of Harini V. towards full and final settlement of the above case. Memo read as under:
“ The respondents in the above case begs to state the details of 4 Demand Draft drawn in favour of Harini towards full and final settlement of the above case:
(1) Demand Draft bearing No.908437, dated 28.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs only) drawn on State Bank of India, T. Narasipura Branch payable to Bangalore;
(2) Demand Draft bearing No.656963 dated 29/01/2019 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) drawn on Syndicate Bank, T. Narasipura Branch, payable at Bangalore Service Branch;
(3) Demand Draft bearing No.186003, dated 25.01.2019 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., T. Narasipura Branch, payable at Bangalore Service Branch;
(4) Demand Draft bearing No.818332, dated 29/01/2019 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) drawn on Bank of Baroda, Malleswaram, Branch, Bangalore.
The same may kindly be taken on record along with Joint Memo filed by the parties, in the interest of justice and equity.”
9. Compromise appears to be lawful hence accepted.
10. Placing the terms of the compromise petition and the statements made in the memo dated 31.01.2019 on record, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the said compromise petition and the memo.
Draw the decree in terms of the compromise. However, the decree be drawn in the matter on payment of court fee on the amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs which is valued. However, parties are entitled for refund of the same in case of court fee is paid.
It is submitted that parties would get the necessary instrument completed and registered before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*