- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2010 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SHRI. K.K. ADARSHA S/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SHRI. K.K. ANANDA SATHISH S/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4. SHRI. K.K. MANJUNATHA S/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 5. SHRI. K.K. VISWANATH S/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS 6. SHRI. K.K. KASINATH S/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 7. MS. K.K. DHANALAKSHMI D/O. LATE P. KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT KOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 AND: 1. SHRI. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT.KOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE K R PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE DEAD BY LRS 1(a) SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(b) SMT. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY W/O SHRI NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 1(c) KUM. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 1(d) KUM. SHYLAJA D/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 1(e) MASTER NAVEEN S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. NARAYANAMMA ALL ARE RESIDING AT: BEHIND MOSQUE, KOWDENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560016. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 AMENDED THE CAUSE TITLE AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.03.2015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 08.04.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6759/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE 17 ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, (CCH 16), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiffs in O.S.No.6759/1996 before the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010 by which their suit was dismissed. 2. When this appeal was listed for final hearing, the parties have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC. The relevant terms of the compromise reads as follows:- "8. The Appellants hereby release, relinquish and give up all their rights, title, interest, and claims in respect of the B-Schedule property, marked as A-B-C-F (described in the sketch appended below) in favour of the Respondents 1(a) to 1(e), who are the legal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 representatives of Late Krishnamurthy (the original defendant in the suit). 9. The Appellants shall continue to retain and enjoy peacefully the C - Schedule property, marked as C-D-E- F, as indicated in the sketch appended below. 10. This compromise is voluntarily entered into by all parties without any fraud, coercion, undue influence, or misrepresentation, and is binding on all parties and their legal representatives. 11. It is further agreed that if any party commits breach of this compromise, the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to seek enforcement or appropriate relief from a competent Court of law. 12. The Respondent acknowledges the possession and enjoyment of the eastern portion of the A-schedule property by the Appellants, more particularly described in the C-schedule and marked as C-D-E-F in the sketch below. 13. The Appellants agree that the western portion of the A-Schedule property shall remain in exclusive possession and ownership of the Respondent, more particularly described in the B-Schedule property and marked as A-B-C-F in the sketch below. 14. The parties agree to maintain the boundary as per the compromise and agree not to interfere in each other's possession hereafter. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 15. That both parties undertake not to raise any future claims against each other in respect of the suit schedule property and shall not cause obstruction or interference with each other's lawful possession and enjoyment. 16. That both parties agree to obtain Khatha and other revenue entries to their names in respect of their portions as agreed above and both parties shall not object in any manner for the same. SCHEDULE PROPERTIES A-SCHEDULE (SUIT PROPERTY) All that piece and parcel of the land measuring East to west: 36 feet, North to south: 68 feet, bearing katha no.35/1, situated at Kowdhenahalli village, K R Puram hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on the: East by : Land belonging to Chotesab and now Masjid; West by : Land belonging to Gangappa and now held by Narayanamma; North by : Road; South by : Land belonging to Muniramaiah. B-SCHEDULE (EXTENT HANDED OVER TO RESPONDENTS) All that piece and parcel of the land measuring East to west: 13 feet, North to south: 68 feet, comprising in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 katha no.35/1, situated at Kowdhenahalli village, K R Puram hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on the: East by : Land belonging to K K Adarsha & others /Appellants. West by : Land belonging to Gangappa and now held by Narayanamma North by : Road South by : Land belonging to Muniramaiah (Marked with letters ABCFA in the Sketch not to scale) C-SCHEDULE (EXTENT RETAINED BY APPELLANTS) All that piece and parcel of the land measuring East to west: 23 feet, North to south: 68 feet, comprising in katha no.35/1, situated at Kowdhenahalli village. K R Puram hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore District and bounded on the: East by : Land belonging to Chotesab and now Masjid West by : Land belonging to legal heirs of Krishnamurthy / Respondents. North by : Road South by : Land belonging to Muniramaiah (Marked with letters FCDEF in the sketch not to scale) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 68 feet West East SKETCH DESCRIPTION FOR IDENTIFICATION (NOT TO SCALE) North B-SCHEDULE - The property delivered to Respondents by Appellants C-SCHEDULE - The property retained and possessed by Appellants Wherefore, the Appellants and Respondents humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly, record this compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Hon'ble trial court and decree the suit in terms of this compromise petition and dispose of R.F.A. No.722/2010. Further this Hon'ble court may direct the jurisdictional revenue authorities, to effect appropriate revenue entries reflecting the above compromise and refund Court fee, if applicable, as per Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity." 3. A perusal of the compromise shows that a part of the suit schedule property would be retained by the appellants/plaintiffs, while a part of the suit schedule property A (13 ft) F (23 Feet) E B C South D - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 would be handed over to the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e)/legal representatives of the defendant. Therefore, compromise is just and lawful and there is no impediment in law to accept this compromise. Accordingly, compromise is accepted. 4. The plaintiffs/appellants and the legal representatives of the defendant/respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(e) are present before the Court and are identified by their respective counsel. They all have acknowledged that they have settled the dispute on terms mentioned above and have affixed their signatures to the compromise petition. In token of such acceptance, they have affixed their signatures on the order sheet of this appeal. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010 passed by the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) in O.S.No.6759/1996 is set aside. 6. This appeal as well as the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.6759/1996 before the XVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16) stand disposed off in terms of the compromise. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44479 RFA No. 722 of 2010 7. Office is directed to draw a decree and if the parties are interested, they are at liberty to get the same registered in accordance with law. 8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4