Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24970 (KAR)

SMT. KAMALAMMA v. SRI. A. GOVINDARAJU

RFA/662/2016 · 2025-04-16

C M Poonacha, Krishna S Dixit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15741-DB RFA No. 662 of 2016 C/W RFA.CROB No. 6 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2016 (DEC) C/W RFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 6 OF 2017 IN RFA NO. 662/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI. M S VIJAYA KUMAR S/O M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. MASTER SRINANDAN S/O M S VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SRI M.S.VIJAYA KUMAR AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. 4. SMT. SHYMALA D/O M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. SRI. M S LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O LATE M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15741-DB RFA No. 662 of 2016 C/W RFA.CROB No. 6 of 2017 6. MASTER SRINIDHI S/O M.S. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER SRI. M S LAKSHMINARAYANA, AS NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE R/AT MARASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT- 563 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R S RAVI., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K H SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A. GOVINDARAJU S/O K.N.A. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 43, B/2, S.F.S.H.I.G 7TH CROSS, YELHANKA, NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 105. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K RAGHAVENDRA.,ADVOCATE) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.02.2016 PASSED IN O.S NO.54/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MALUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. IN RFA CROB NO.6/2017: BETWEEN: SRI. A. GOVINDARAJU S/O K.N.A. REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 43, B/2, S.F.S.H.I.G 7TH CROSS, YELHANKA, NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 105. …CROSS OBJECTOR (BY SRI.K RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15741-DB RFA No. 662 of 2016 C/W RFA.CROB No. 6 of 2017 AND: 1. SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O LATE M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEAR,S 2. M S VIJAYA KUMAR S/O LATE M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. MASTER SRINANDAN S/O M S VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, BEING MINOR, REPTD BY HIS FATHER RESPONDENT-2 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN. 4. SMT.SHYMALA D/O LATE M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. M S LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O LATE M A SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 6. MASTER SRINIDHI S/O M S LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER RESPONDENT NO.5 AS NATURAL GUARDIAN ALL ARE RESIDING AT MARASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R S RAVI.,SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K H SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA CROB IN RFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 9.2.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.54/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS RFA AND RFA CROB, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15741-DB RFA No. 662 of 2016 C/W RFA.CROB No. 6 of 2017 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The suit in O.S.No.54/2012 having been partly decreed, the judgment & decree have been put in challenge by both the plaintiffs and the defendants vide RFA No.662/2016 c/w RFA CROB No.6/2017. Both the sides with the active participation of their advocates have settled the lis once for all and have filed the subject Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908. 2. Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 & 5 of the said Compromise Petition being relevant are reproduced below: “ 3. The appellants herein today totally paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(twenty lakhs only) to the respondent by way of a) Demand Draft.No.832920 dated 17-03- 2025 drawn on Karnataka Gramina bank Maluur Branch of Rs.8,00,000/- (Eight lakhs only), in favor of A.Govindaraj. b) Demand Draft.No.832921 dated 17-03- 2025 drawn on Karnataka Gramina bank Maluur Branch of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six lakhs only), in favor of A.Govindaraj. c) Demand Draft.No.832922 dated 17-03- 2025 drawn on Karnataka Gramina bank Maluur Branch of Rs.6,00,000/- (Six lakhs only), in favor of A.Govindaraj. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15741-DB RFA No. 662 of 2016 C/W RFA.CROB No. 6 of 2017 same is acknowledged by the respondent by relinquishing all his right, title, and interest over the suit schedule property. 4. The respondent has no objection to cancel the sale deed date d16-01-2012 registered as document.No.MLR-1-04611-2011-12 in C.D.No.MLRD72 before the Sub-Registrar Malur, in favour of Respondent. 5. The respondent has no objection to dismiss the R.F.A.CROB.NO.6/2017 connected with this appeal.” 3. We have perused the appeal papers as also the Compromise Petition. We interacted with each of the parties in Kannada and they have understood the same. We have also interacted with their advocates. We are of the considered view that there is no impediment on facts or in law for recording this Compromise which is apparently lawful and thereby putting an end to the lis in a wholesale way. There is no reason to doubt bonafide of the settlement either. 4. In terms of Compromise Petition, the appellants in RFA No.662/2016 this day have handed three Demand Drafts all evenly dated 17.03.2025, of them one is for a sum of Rs.8 lakh and other two are for a sum of Rs.6 lakh each, in total a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15741-DB RFA No. 662 of 2016 C/W RFA.CROB No. 6 of 2017 Lakh) only to respondent-plaintiff Mr.A.Govindraju, the receipt whereof he hereby acknowledges. In view of the above settlement, the RFA No.662/2016 & RFA CROB No.6/2017 are disposed off. The impugned judgment and order are substituted by the Compromise. The sale deed dated 16.01.2012 having been set at naught as has been stated in para 4 of the Compromise Petition, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall make an appropriate endorsement to that effect in the relevant registers on production of a copy of this decree, forthwith. Registry to draw the decree accordingly. Registry to refund the court fees in a normative way immediately. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE Snb/Bsv List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1