- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7845 RFA No. 1213 of 2021 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. 1213 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, YEALLAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, VIBHUTHIPURA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.SHANKAREGOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BASAVARAJU.H.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE PAPAIAH, W/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE PAPAIAH, W/O MUNIRAJA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SMT. RADHA D/O LATE PAPAIAH, W/O RAJA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7845 RFA No. 1213 of 2021 5. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 6. SRI. GOPI S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DIED, UNMARRIED NO LEGAL HEIR. 7. SRI. RAVI S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 8. SRI. VARUNA S/O LATE PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE RA/T KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, KRISHNARAJAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 9. SRI. BASHEER AHMED, S/O SHAIK NANNE SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RA/T DOOR NO.52, CHIKKA MUGAPPA COLONY, MARATHAHALLI POST, VIBHUTHIPURA, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 037. 10. SRI. ANWAR BASHA, S/O SATTAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT DODDANEKKUNDI MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, HARISCHANDRA COLONY, BENGALURU-560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8; NOTICE TO R9-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:21.02.2025; V/O DATED:21.02.2025 R6 DEAD, UNMARRIED NO LRS; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7845 RFA No. 1213 of 2021 R10-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.M.B.Shankaregowda., counsel on behalf of Sri.H.N.Basavaraju., for the appellant and Sri.Shivashankar.K., counsel for respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 have appeared in person. Notice to respondent No.10 was ordered on 11.02.2022. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.10 is served and unrepresented. Respondent No.10 neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. This appeal is filed by defendant No.3 challenging the Judgment and decree dated:24.08.2021 passed by the Court of XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-23). Counsel for respective parties submits that Sri.Muniyappa - the appellant and respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 namely Smt.Savithramma, Smt.Susheelamma, Smt.Geetha, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7845 RFA No. 1213 of 2021 Smt.Radha, Sri.Manjunath, Sri.Ravi and Sri.Varuna 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 respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 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 allowed 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 will and volition without there being any coercion and undue influence from any side. 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the compromise petition, the appellant is handing over a Demand - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7845 RFA No. 1213 of 2021 Drafts drawn in favor of respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 for a sum agreed as per the compromise petition in the open Court. Counsel for respondents 1 to 5, 7 & 8 acknowledges the receipt of the demand drafts. 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. 5. The Regular First Appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise petition, the Judgment and decree dated:24.08.2021 passed by the Court of XXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-23) in O.S.No.8156/2011 is set-aside. 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.: 3