- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ-) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2022 IN RFA No. 451/2022 BETWEEN: M NAGARAJ S/O LT MUNIVEERAPPA AGED 72 YEARS, R/AT NO 7/3, VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, OPP TO GOVT SCHOOL, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 084 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S.MOHITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT V.SARASWATHI W/O MUNIRAJU AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT 2/124, SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 084 2. M MUNIRAJU S/O LT MUNIVEERAPPA AGED 78 YEARS, R/AT 2/124, SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 TEMPLE STREET, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,1908 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2021 OS.No. 3917/2013 FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. AND INJUNCTION; AND ETC. IN RFA NO. 320/2022 BETWEEN: M NAGARAJ S/O LATE MUNIVEERAPPA AGEDA BOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.7/3 VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, OPP TO GOVT SCHOOL, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 084 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MOHITH KUMAR K S.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT V SARASWATHI W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/124 SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE- 560 084 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH.M.H., ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13/12/2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 3197/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION; AND ETC. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Both these appeals arise out of impugned common judgment and decree dated 13.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.3197/2013 clubbed with O.S.No.3917/2013 by the XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent - V. Saraswathi instituted the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.3197/2013 against the petitioner-defendant – M Nagaraj for declaration and possession and recovery of the possession of the ‘B’ Schedule Property so also the appellant - M Nagaraj instituted one more suit in O.S.No.3917/2013 against defendant Nos.1 and 2 – V. Saraswathi and M. Muniraju for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the suit schedule properties. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 4. Both the suits in O.S.No.3197/2013 and O.S.No.3917/2013 having been clubbed by the trial Court, the same came to be disposed by a common judgment and decree dated 13.12.2021, under which, the suit in O.S.No.3197/2013 filed by V. Saraswathi was decreed in her favour while O.S.No.3917/2013 filed by M. Nagaraj was dismissed by the Trial Court. Appellants in both the appeals is M.Nagaraj, while respondent in both the appeals are V. Saraswathi and M. Muniraju. 5. A compromise petition has been filed by the parties, which reads as under: “MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 3 CPC 1. The above appeals are filed by appellant challenging the common judgment dated 13.12.2021 passed by the 25th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-23, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3197/2013 connected within O.S.No.3917/2013. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S.No.3917/2013 and whereas the respondent was the plaintiff in O.S.No.3197/2013 wherein suit O.S.No.3197/2013 was decreed in respect of schedule property. Under the said decree, the appellant herein was directed to vacate the premises and to handover the possession of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 property within six months from the date of the judgment. 2. The parties herein are closely related and due to the intervention of friends and well-wisher they have arrived at a settlement/compromise in order to put an end to the controversy and accordingly, the present compromise petition is filed. The appellant is agreed to vacate the schedule B property as directed by the trial court and to handover the possession to the respondent forthwith. The said proposal is accepted by respondent herein. The appellant herein declares that he will not claim any right, title, interest in respect of the schedule property in future and will not claim the same under any document more particularly the possession agreement dated 23.03.1999. He further declares that either himself or his legal representatives are not having any right, title and interest in whatsoever manner at present or in future. 3. It is the terms of the compromise that the above stated settlement is subject to payment of Rs.2 lakhs which is payable to the appellant by the respondent and the same is being paid through demand drafts Dt: 25.02.2025 bearing No. 536662 and 536663. For Rupes one lakhs each in favour of the wife of the appellant. Further respondent will forego the amount that she is entitled to receive from the appellant as ordered by this Hon'ble Court on 24.02.2022 at Rs.3,500/- per month and any amount of deposit made - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 by the appellant shall be withdrawn by him. Apart from this, there is no other financial liability and in total, the present settlement is for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs as stated above and the respondent is forgoing approximate an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which is to be payable by the appellant herein. 4. The possession of the property is handed over today itself and the appellant has shifted all the machineries from the schedule property and the vacant possession is handed over to the respondent today. The appellant is free to establish the said floor mill, where ever he wishes and license which is right now standing in his name for which the respondent will have no objection. 5. The above compromise is voluntary, without any undue influence or any other factors. This compromise is lawful and there are no legal impediment to this Hon'ble Court to record compromise. In view of the above, both appellant and respondent request this Hon'ble Court be please to pass appropriate order in view of the above settlement arrived in the interest of justice.” 6. As per the terms and conditions of joint compromise petition, the respondents have handed over two demand drafts bearing Nos.536662 and 536663 in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and the appellant acknowledges the receipt of the said demand drafts from - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13389 RFA No. 451 of 2022 C/W RFA No. 320 of 2022 the respondents. So also, as per terms and conditions of the compromise petition, the appellant-M. Nagaraj has handed over the Keys of ‘B’ Schedule Property to the V. Saraswathi and M. Muniraju. The compromise petition also stipulates that all the amount deposited by the appellant in the present appeals should be refunded back to the appellant. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of both the appeals in terms of the compromise petition by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals are disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. ii) The impugned judgment and decree stands modified in terms of the compromise petition. iii) Registry is directed to return/refund the entire amount deposited by the appellant to the appellant immediately forthwith. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 99