- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7846 RFA No. 147 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2020 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJA W/O SRI.S.SHASHIKUMAR, D/O SRI.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 82 AND 83, ROYAL CASTLE APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 002, HAL 2ND STAGE, 5TH CROSS, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU-560 008. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.S.JAGADISH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B.RAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 2. SRI. C.K.RAMESH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.11, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, PAPAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, BEHIND CLOUD NINE HOSPITAL, MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560 017. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7846 RFA No. 147 of 2020 3. SRI. C.K.BABU S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 28, 13TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, 10TH MAIN, MALLESHPALYA, BENGALURU-560 075. 4. SMT. USHA D/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.82/1, SREE VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, 5TH CROSS, HAL II STAGE, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE-560 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.SRINIVASA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2; SRI. SHIVANANDA METI., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & 4) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.P.S.Jagadish., counsel on behalf of Sri.P.B.Raju., for the appellant, Sri.K.Srinivasa., counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.Shivananda Meti., counsel for respondents 3 and 4 have appeared in person. 2. This appeal is filed by plaintiff challenging the Judgment and decree dated:23.10.2019 passed by the Court of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7846 RFA No. 147 of 2020 XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-39). Counsel for respective parties submits that Smt.Girija - the appellant and the respondents namely Sri.Krishnappa, Sri.Ramesh, Sri.C.K.Babu and Smt.Usha are physically present before the Court. They have been duly identified by their respective counsel. Counsel for respective parties submits that during the pendency of the appeal, at the instance of mutual well-wishers, the appellant and the respondents have agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Hence, they filed a Memorandum of Compromise Petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC. Counsel therefore, submits that the Compromise Petition may be taken on record and the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 3. When queried, the parties have stated that they have indeed settled the dispute and they have arrived at compromise/ settlement and the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise/ settlement arrived by them. They further state that they have arrived at settlement on their own - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7846 RFA No. 147 of 2020 will and volition without there being any coercion and undue influence from any side. The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties and the compromise petition is placed on record. I have perused the same with utmost care. 4. The Regular First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition, the judgment and decree dated:23.10.2019 passed by the Court of XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-39) in O.S.No.6985/2008 is modified in terms of the compromise petition. The Registry concerned is hereby directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise petition. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10