- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2013 (POS) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2273 OF 2012 IN RSA No. 69/2013 BETWEEN: SRI H DHARMAPRAKASH AGED 84 YEARS SON OF H K ANANTHAIAH RESIDING IN HIRIADKA OF BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE-576113 UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N JAGADISH BALIGA AND SRI. G.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT SULOCHANA R HEGDE SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(A) SMT. MALLIKA M. KISHORE W/O A N M KISHORE AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT No.4601, PRESTIGE MONTECARIO YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 1(B) SRI. B. PRASHANTH HEGDE S/O V. RATNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT No.261, DEFENCE COLONY HAL II STAGE INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560038 1(C) SRI. B. SANTOSH HEGDE S/O V. RATNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT No.139/6, SKANDA DOMLUR LAYOUT, DOMLUR BENGALURU - 560 071 1(D) SRI. B. ULLAS HEGDE S/O RATNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT No.255, COSMOPOLIS B-12, 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO D)) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 17.9.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.103/2000 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 26.6.2000 PASSED IN OS.NO.281/1993 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), UDUPI. IN RSA NO. 2273/2012 BETWEEN: SRI. H DHARMAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 SON OF H K ANANTHAIAH RESIDING IN HIRIADKA OF BOMMARABETTU VILLAGE 576 113 UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. N JAGADISH BALIGA & SRI. G.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. KUSUMA R NAIK AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS WIFE OF DR R L NAIK ASHOK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIEYT, H G I G COLONY CHARCOP KANDIVELI WEST BOMBAY 400 067 2. SMT SULOCHANA R HEGDE AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2(A) SMT. MALLIKA M. KISHORE W/O A N M KISHORE AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT No.4601 PRESTIGE MONTECARLO YELAHANKA BENGALURU - 560 064 2(B) SRI. B. PRASHANTH HEGDE S/O V. RATNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT No.261, DEFENCE COLONY HAL II STAGE INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 2(C) SRI. B SANTHOSH HEGDE S/O V. RATNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT No.139/6, SKANDA DOMLUR LAYOUT, DOMLUR BENGALURU - 560 071 2(D) SRI. B. ULLAS HEGDE S/O RATNAKAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT No.255, COSMOPOLIS B-12, 1ST CROSS, 10TH MAIN HAL II STAGE , INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 038 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CYRIL PRASAD PAIS, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A-D) V/O DATED 11.02.14 NOTICE TO R1 D/W THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 17.9.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.90/2001 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 26.7.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.179/1996 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), UDUPI. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant and the legal representative of the deceased respondent appealed through virtual mode. The parties are identified by their respective counsels. They - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 have filed a memorandum of compromise. The terms of the compromise petition reads as follows: "1. That these Appeals are filed by the Defendant in O.S No. 281/1993 and Plaintiff in O.S No. 179/1996. The O.S No. 281/1993 came to be flied by the original Plaintiff for possession in respect of the schedule property. O.S No. 179/1996 was filed by the Appellant for redemption of Mortgage in respect of the schedule property. The claim of the Appellant is that he is the purchaser of the Mulageni and hence have right of possession by redemption of Mortgage. 2. That the Suit in O.S No. 179/1996 came to be dismissed and O.S No. 281/1993 came to be Decreed. Challenging the Decree in O.S No. 281/1993, the Appellant filed R.A No. 103/2000 and challenging the Decree in O.S No. 179/1996 filed R.A No. 90/2001. Both the Appeals came to be dismissed by confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Challenging the dismissal of both the Appeals, these Appeals are filed. 3. That during the pendency of these Appeal the original Respondent in both the Appeals, Smt. Sulochana R Hegde expired on 09-06-2017. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 Applications are filed by the Legal Representative of Smt. Sulochana R Hegde to come on record and the same are pending. 4. That after the intervention of the friends, well- wishers and respective Counsels, the Parties have arrived to a settlement and reporting the same to the Court., 5. That the schedule property along with the existing building came to be acquired by the Highway Authority of India for widening of the Road. According to the Parties, the schedule property originally belonged to the Sri. Veerabhadra Temple Hiriyadka, Udupi Taluk and District. The existing building was put up by the tenant and the Parties are rival Claimants. In view of the rival claim, the Parties agreed to receive 50% to each in the total compensation receivable for the acquisition from the Highway Authority of India which entitles the Tenants to make claim. 6. That as submitted above, the Appellant is entitled for 50% of the share and the Legal Representative of Smt. Sulochana R Hegde are jointly entitled for the 50% of the share in the schedule property from the Highway Authority of India. This compromise is entered with free will and by understanding the consequences thereof. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 7. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise and dispose off both the Appeals in terms of this compromise and direct the Registry to refund the permissible Court Fee to the Appellant, in the interests of Justice and Equity." 2. The contents of the memorandum of compromise are read over and explained to the parties in the language known to them. They have understood and accepted the terms and conditions of the compromise petition, and prays to dispose of the appeals in terms of the compromise petition. 3. The memorandum of compromise is placed on record. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the memorandum of compromise. Draw decree accordingly. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48203 RSA No. 69 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 2273 of 2012 In view of disposal of the appeals, pending IAs., if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS