- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37995 RFA No. 1166 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1166 OF 2015 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MARANNA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O BABUSAPALYA, KENGERI POST, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT- 560060. …APPELLANT (BY SRI JAGADEESHACHARI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, NO.55 NTI LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE, BHOOPASANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560094. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2015 PASSED IN O.S NO.2455/2007 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO.19) AND DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY RESPONDENT IN O.S.no.2455/2007. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37995 RFA No. 1166 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and decree dated 29.06.2015 passed by VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH.no.19) in O.S.no.2455/2007, this appeal is filed by defendant - appellant. 2. Suit was for permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit property by plaintiff - respondent. Suit was decreed and permanent injunction was granted. 3. It was submitted by learned counsel that during pendency of this appeal, parties have arrived at settlement, which are reduced into writing and compromise petition was filed today, which reads as follows : "2. Both the parties submits that, the property bearing Sy No. 146/8 measuring 26 Guntas situated at Babasabarapalya, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said property was acquired by Government under urban Land Ceiling Act in case no.ULC (A) (8)68/1985-86. However based on the sale deed dated 1/11/1990 said to have executed by one Muniyappa in respect of katha no.7/1 and house list no.35 the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37995 RFA No. 1166 of 2015 respondent has filed suit is O.S.No. in respect of a portion of the aforesaid agriculture property for the relief of permanent injunction against the appellant herein on the file of CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE (CCH-19). Ultimately on misapplication of law the said suit was came to be decreed under the judgment and decree dated: 29.06.2015. Being aggrieved by the said the judgment and decree the appellant preferred this appeal. 3. Both the appellant and respondent submits that, recently the respondent has come to know that the subject matter of the suit is part and parcel of Sy. No.146/7 and Sy.No.146/8 of Babasabarapalya Village. Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, However the respondent is not in possession of schedule property in the suit under this appeal. 4. Under the said circumstances at the intervention of well-wishers, friends and relatives of both the parties, the matter is settled amicably in between the appellant and the respondent. In terms of the said settlement the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the respondent by way of D.D No.411567 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Kengeri branch, Bangalore. 5. On receipt of aforesaid sum the respondent agreed that, herein after the respondent shall not claim any manner of right title or interest what so-ever-over the schedule property described in the aforesaid suit or in respect of portion of Sy No.146/7 and Sy.No.146/8 of Babasabarapalya, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37995 RFA No. 1166 of 2015 taluk. Further herein after the respondent shall not interfere in any manner with the possession of the appellant in respect of the property bearing Sy No 146/8 measuring 26 Guntas situated at Babasabarapaiya Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. 6. It is further agreed between the parties that, the respondent shall not alienate or encumber the schedule property in any manner by way of sale, gift, release deed and general power of attorney in favour of any third parties or his family members based on the aforesaid registered sale deed dated: 02.11.1990 said to have been executed by Muniyappa S/o Maregowda in his favour. Further the respondent shall hand over the original sale deed dated 02.11.1990 to the appellant today itself. Further the respondent shall execute deed of cancellation of aforesaid sale deed or release deed either in favour of the appellant or his nominee in respect of the property as described in the sale deed dated 2/11/1990 and the respondent shall." 4. Parties are present and are identified by their respective counsel. On interaction, they stated that they have been explained terms of compromise and after understanding same, they have affirmed same out of their fee will and volition without there being any threat, coercion or undue influence from anybody. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37995 RFA No. 1166 of 2015 5. Perusal of terms of compromise would reveal that in this suit for injunction, parties have also entered into settlement with regard to title, whereunder plaintiff - respondent has agreed to hand over original registered sale deed dated 02.11.1990 to defendant - appellant herein and to execute a deed for cancellation of release deed in favour of defendant - appellant herein. It is stated that said deed would be executed within a period of one month from today. 6. Compromise petition is taken on record. Appeal is allowed to the extent and in terms of compromise petition, judgment and decree dated 29.06.2015 passed by VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH.no.19) in O.S.no.2455/2007, are modified accordingly. 7. In view of disposal of petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. Registry to draw decree incorporating terms of compromise. SD/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3