- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 329 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT BABY W/O DEVDAS, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. HARISH S/O DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. LATHA S/O DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NEAR GUDDE HOTEL CROSS ROAD BEHIND YENEPOYA QUARTERS, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 006 4. MAHABALA RAI S/O LATE BOOBA RAI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 5. BABY DEJAPPA BOLAR W/O LATE DEJAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 6. CHANDRASHEKAR POOJARY S/O THIMAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 7. BOMMAYYA POOJARY S/O PANDITH MAHALINGA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 8. VALSA RAJ S/O KUNHIRAMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 APPELLANTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE R/AT NEAR Y.M.K. QUARTERS, ASHOKNAGAR MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT - 575 006 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.1, 2, 3, 5 AND 6 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025, APPELLANT NOS.4, 7 AND 8 ARE DISMISSED AS ABATED) AND: 1. MRS ROZY LASRADO W/O LATE LAWRENCE LASRADO, MAJOR 2. RICHARD LASRADO S/O LATE LAWRENCE LASRADO, MAJOR 3. HUBERT LASRADO S/O LATE LAWRENCE LASRADO, MAJOR 4. CICILIA LASRADO D/O LATE LAWRENCE LASRADO, MAJOR 5. VEERA LASRADO D/O LATE LAWRENCE LASRADO, MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT NEAR Y M K QUARTERS ASHOKNAGAR, MANGALORE, DK DISTRICT - 575 006 …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M VISHWAJITH RAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 25.1.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.59/2005 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALORE, D.K., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 7.3.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.35/2001 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), MANGALORE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT It is stated that appellants No.4, 7 and 8 are dead and a memo is filed in this regard. 2. Memo is taken on record. 3. Appeal filed by appellants No.4, 7 and 8 is dismissed as abated. 4. This appeal is arising from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.35/2001 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.), Mangalore and the judgment and decree in R.A.No.59/2005 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore. The suit is one for injunction wherein the plaintiff claimed that the defendants should not interfere in the right of way in the suit property. 5. The defendants filed counter claim asserting right to put up a compound wall and sought injunction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 against the plaintiff to restrain the plaintiff from interfering in the construction of the compound wall by the defendant. The suit is decreed in part. The defendants restrained from interfering with the use of the pathway by the plaintiffs. The counter claim was rejected. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the defendants filed an appeal in R.A.59/2005 referred to above. The appeal was allowed. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and the counter claim filed by the defendants was allowed. The plaintiffs were restrained from obstructing the defendants from constructing the compound wall leaving 3 feet space towards eastern side of the defendants property. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents are present before the Court. Appellant No.2 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 8. The surviving parties to the proceeding have signed the application under Order XXIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The terms and conditions of the joint compromise application read as under: "The appellant No.1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and the respondents respectfully submit as below: The dispute between the aforesaid parties is amicably settled and thus the parties are presenting this compromise petition. It is submitted that OS No. 35/2001 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge ( JR DN) Mangalore, D.K. was filed for a Judgment and Decree permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their men, servants, relatives or any one claiming through or under them from in any way encroaching or causing obstruction to the 10 feet wide mud road leading to the plaint schedule properties situated in R S No. 106/5 of Boloor Village of Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The respondents have made counter claim of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from preventing the respondents from erecting a compound wall along with the eastern - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 boundary of the property situated in 90 B Boloor Village, Mangalore Taluk comprised in S. No. 106/5, measuring 0-13 cents. It is further submitted that the Trial Court by the Judgment and decree dated 07-03-2005 was pleased to decree the suit and dismissed the Counter claim. RA No. 59/2005 filed by the respondents was allowed by the First Appellate Court as per the Judgment and Decree dated 25-01-2014 and suit was dismissed and counter claim was allowed in part and it was decreed that the appellants are restrained from obstructing the respondents from erecting compound wall leaving 3 feet width mud road towards the eastern side of respondents property. It is submitted that during the pendency of this appeal, parties have amicably settled the disputes and the respondents have put up the compound wall from point A to B in the sketch annexed by leaving the roadway approach to the plaint schedule properties and a concrete road was also formed and thus the respondents have no objections for user of the road existing as on the day and the width and length of the existence of the cross road is shown in the annexed sketch to this compromise petition. The respondents also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 have the right of user of the existing road. An opening is also kept exclusively for the respondents at point C in the sketch for ingress and egress through the existing road to reach the property of the respondents. Similarly, the appellants do not dispute about the compound wall already put up by the respondents. Both the parties shall not obstruct the roadway or park any vehicles in the existing road. The parties shall not disturb the pipelines and drainage that is already put under the concrete road. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to accept this compromise petition and dispose of the above appeal in terms of this compromise petition in the interest of justice and equity." 10. On going through the terms and conditions of the compromise application arrived at and signed by the surviving appellants and the respondents, this Court is of the view that the settlement is lawful and accordingly, the impugned judgments and decrees have to be modified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38683 RSA No. 329 of 2014 11. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.01.2014 passed by III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru in R.A.59/2005 and the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada in O.S.No.35/2001 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) are modified. (iii) Registry to draw the decree accordingly. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1