- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.938 OF 2016 (SP) BETWEEN: SRI SUNIL KUMAR N.K. S/O LATE K.T. SREEDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, HEERACHAND LAYOUT, JEEVANAHALLI, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560003 PRESENTLY AT ABU DHABI, REP. BY HIS BROTHER AND SPA HOLDER MOHAN RAJ N.K. …APPELLANT (BY SRI AMRUTHESH C., SRI K. GIRIDHAR AND SRI MOHAN RAJ N.K., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SRI P.V. NAGARAJ S/O LATE N. VENKATARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.78, CHARLES CAMBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU-560 005. 2. SRI P. BABU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHA, R/AT NO.671, PREM NIVAS, OM SHAKTHI TEMPLE ROAD, GUPTHA GARDEN, ST.THOMAS TOWN POST, KAMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560084. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 3. MRS. R. SHILPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.71, 3RD CROSS, HUTCHINS ROAD, ST.THOMAS, TOWN POST, BENGALURU-560084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.R. ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY AND SRI PHANIRAJ, ADVOCATES FOR C/R-2; NOTICE TO R-1 (P.V. NAGARAJ) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 22.01.2025, NOTICE TO R-3 IS D/W) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 & UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 04.03.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16471/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYOHALL UNIT BENGALURU (CCH-29) PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT A memorandum of settlement under Section 89 of CPC read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 has been received by the Mediator. The terms of the settlement is enumerated as under: “1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of the Agreement of sale date 09.08.2003 executed by the first respondent in his - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 favour in respect of suit Schedule A and B properties. The Trial Court in aforementioned Judgment and Decree as partly decree the suit rejecting the prayer for specific performance of the agreement and directed the Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 to refund a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum for the date of suit till payment. 2. The Respondent No.1 has sold suit Schedule Properties in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 as per the registered sale deed dated 06.05.2006 and the Respondents No.2 and 3 are in possession and occupation of Suit Schedule Properties. 3. The Respondent No.2 represents the interest of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 and 3 have remained absent in the above appeal. 4. Both the parties submit that both parties have agreed to amicably settle the dispute taking into consideration duration of the litigation with uncertainty of the result and the litigation expenses. 5. The Respondent No.2 has offered to pay a sum of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) as full and final settlement of all the claims made by the Appellant/Plaintiff inclusive of interest up to date. The Appellant/Plaintiff has - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 agreed to accept the said sum of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) as full and final settlement of all his claims. 6. The Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2 agrees and undertakes to pay the said sum of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) to the Appellant/Plaintiff by way of demand draft on or before 23.10.2025. 7. The Appellant/Plaintiff agrees and admits that he gives up his claim for purchase of suit Schedule Property as prayed in the above suit and he accepts the decree in O.S.No.16471/2006. He further admits that he has no further claim whatsoever as against the suit Schedule Property undertakes to withdraw the above appeal does not have any claim against the Respondents. 8. The Defendant No.2 has agreed to pay the aforementioned amount in order to resolve the dispute amicably though he has no obligation to pay the amount and the Appellant ought to recover the amount from Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1. as per the Decree in O.S. No.16471/2006. 9. The Defendants No.2 reserves liberty to recover the amount of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) from Respondent No.1 in accordance with law. 10. Both the parties state that they have entered in to this agreement on their own and there is no coercion or force from any one. 11. In view of the settlement arrived at, the Appellant prays that full court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal and in the Suit may be refunded to the Appellant/Plaintiff. 12. Both the parties agree to appear before the court with their proof of identity to enable the Hon’ble Court to record settlement.” 2. The appellant represented through Special Power of Attorney Holder and respondent No.2 are present before the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. They have signed the settlement before the Mediator. On query to both the parties, they state the settlement has been entered into voluntarily without any coercion or undue influence. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 3. Defendant No.2/respondent No.2 has agreed to pay a sum of `14,10,000/- being the decreetal amount to resolve the dispute amicably, while reserving liberty to recover the amount from defendant No.1/respondent No.1 as per the decree passed in O.S. No.16471/2006. 4. The memorandum of settlement is taken on record. The terms of the settlement shall form part and parcel of this order. 5. A memo has been filed by respondent No.2 stating that, in terms of the settlement arrived at during the mediation proceedings, respondent No.2 has paid a sum of `10,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.104785 dated 17.10.2025 in favour of the appellant (Sunil Kumar N.K.) drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited, Infantry Road Branch, Bengaluru and remaining a sum of `4,10,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.816777 dated 17.10.2025 in favour of the appellant (Sunil Kumar N.K.) drawn on Bank of Baroda, HBR Layout Branch, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42127 RFA No. 938 of 2016 Bengaluru. The Special Power of Attorney holder of the appellant acknowledged the receipt of the same. In light of demand drafts having been handed over to the Special Power of Attorney Holder, the appeal stands disposed of. 6. Since the matter has been settled between the parties under Section 89 CPC, the appellant is entitled to refund of the Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. Registry is directed to refund the same to the Special Power of Attorney Holder on proper identification, in accordance with law. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89