- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2147 OF 2022 (INJ-) BETWEEN: SRI. M. S. GOWRISH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O ALTE M.S. SUBBAPPA NO. 254, “ SNEHALAYA” 1ST CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, JANAJYOTHINAGAR JNANABHARATHI POST BANGALORE 560 056 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMAR DYAVAPATNA AND SRI. PARASHURAM AJJAMPUR LAKSHMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M. P. GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/OLATE PUTTASHYAMAPPA R/AT ANJANADRI NILAYA MALLATHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 056. 2. SRI. H.C. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O CHINNAPPA RA/T HARAGADDE VILALGE HARAGADDE POST, JIGANI HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK 560 105 3. SRI. SEETHARAMAN B G AGE: MAJOR S/O GURUMURHTY R/AT NO.6, SAKALE NIVASA Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 1ST MAIN, V.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 086 4. SMT. B.M. LALITHA W/O B.S. MANJUNATH AGE MAJOR NO.6, SAKALE NIVASA 1ST MAIN V.H.B.C.S LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 086 5. SRI. B.S. MANJUNATH S/O SEETHARAMAIAH AGE MAJOR NO.6, SAKALE NIVASA 1ST 0 MAIN V.H.B.C.S LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 086 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIKA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2022 PASSED IN OS No.2198/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSNG THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal, by the plaintiff in O.S.No.21982013, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.07.2022, whereby the said suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the respondents - defendants was dismissed by the Trial Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 2. The matter having been referred to the Mediation, the parties have amicably settled the dispute by way of Memorandum of Compromise Petition, which reads as under: MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE The Appellant and the Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 in the above case beg to submit as follows: 1. At the intervention of the well-wishers and also on mediation the Appellant/plaintiff and Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have amicably settled the interse dispute amongst themselves and have come to a definite conclusion in reference to the title interest ownership of schedule property in favour of Respondents No.3, 4 and 5. 2. The Appellant/plaintiff confirms that Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have acquired right title interest and ownership on the basis of the following documents: a) Registered Sale deed dated 27.3.1992 executed by M.P.Gundappa during his lifetime for valuable consideration pertaining to the schedule property and indicated that B.M.Lalitha as owner in possession of the property which is described in the schedule given hereunder to this Compromise Petition. The sale deed executed is dated 27.3.1992 registered as document No.8287 of Book I, Vol. No.4722, pages 217 to 220 khaneshumari No.1476/13, Khatha No. 1381,registered Sale Deed dated 27.3.1992 Sub Registrar, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 Bengaluru North Taluk registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. b) The Appellant confirms that on inducting in lawful settled possession of the property Smt. B.M.Lalitha the 4th Respondent got the property mutated in his name to the extent of 60 feet x 40 feet with the Yeshwanathapura Grama Panchayath. c) The Plaintiff/Appellant confirms that the said property is also assessed before the Pattanagere Nagara Sabhe, Bengaluru, thereafter in the jurisdictional Authority of Rajajeshwari Nagara Sabhe pertaining to immovable property, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike also assessed the property and collected the taxes pertaining to the property. d) The Appellant/plaintiff confirms that on 14.2.2007 BMP had entered the name of the said Smt. B.M. Lalitha in No.183/13/43/2 in her name. e) The Appellant/plaintiff confirms that on 26.2.2013 khatha certificate is issued in the name of 4th Respondent Smt. B.M.Lalitha and continuous taxes have been paid in regard to the immovable property including the reflecting the name in the records. f) The Appellant/plaintiff confirms that the BESCOM Authorities have provided power supply for the property, and water supply is also provide by the BWSSB. Thus, the title was vested continuously uninterruptedly from the date of the execution of the registered sale deed coupled with plan issued in his favour. 3. The Appellant/plaintiff submits that the Plaintiff/Appellant on misrepresentation given by M.P.Gundappa and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 H.C.Nagaraj his Power of Attorney got a registered sale deed on 11.3.2013 and also got an incidental documents which do not reflect in the tax registers or books, property number that which is mentioned in the schedule to the document is the very same property which Smt. B.M.Lalitha had acquired. 4. The Appellant/plaintiff confirms that the Judgment and Decree passed in OS.No.2198/2013 passed by the 24th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City is appropriate proper and it confirms that neither title nor interest vests with the Appellant/plaintiff and that there is priority of title priority of identified possession of the property in the name of Smt.B.M.Lalitha who is the party in the Original Suit OS.No.2198/2013. 5. The Appellant/plaintiff submits that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to consider that the document Sale deed dated 11.03.2013 executed by HC Nagaraja to Gowrish MS in the custody of the Appellant/plaintiff which is registered as Document No.NGB-1-11735-2012-13, Book 1, 13 pages CD No.NGBD-240 dt.11.03.2013 be rendered as nullified and cancelled holding title interest ownership of Smt. B.M.Lalitha pertaining to the immovable property mentioned in the schedule. 6. The Appellant/plaintiff submits that he will not litigate upon the property and also considers that the Appeal be dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree in OS.No.2198/2013. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 7. The Appellant/Plaintiff confirms that he has not entered into any agreement or transactions and/or any documents on the basis of the pendency of the Appeal or on the basis of the registered sale deed standing in his name or in the event any such document executed it is publicly cancelled. 8. The Appellant/plaintiff undertakes that either by himself or through his Power of Attorney Holder or any person representing him or through him undertake that they will not interfere with the right title interest ownership of Respondents No.4 Smt. B.M.Lalitha who has title to the property pertaining the schedule immovable property. 9. The khatha documents in the custody of the plaintiff/appellant may be directed to be rendered as cancelled. WHEREFORE, the Appellant/plaintiff and Respondents No.3, 4 and 5 respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to consider the compromise petition with the following reliefs: a) To Cancel the registered sale deed standing in the name of Appellant/plaintiff registered as document No.NGB-1- 11735-2012-13, Book I, - 13 pages CD No. NGBD - 240 dt.11.03.2013. b) To cancel the khatha and tax paid receipts in respect of the property by rendering the said document not only to this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 Compromise Petition but also to the Office of the Sub Registrar for indicating it is cancelled in the Encumbrance Certificate. c) Order directing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to cancel its jurisdiction to cancel the khatha standing in the name of the Appellant/plaintiff pertaining to the schedule immovable property. d) Confirm the judgment and Decree in OS.No.2198/2013 passed by the 24th Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City. e) Order directing the Appellant to return the cancelled sale deed, khatha, and tax paid receipts to the Respondent No.4. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of site bearing No.13, situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 40 feet in all measuring 2400 sq.feet along with A.C.Sheet, measuring 9 x 11 feet carved out of converted land bearing Sy.No.43/4 converted for agricultural to non agricultural residential use, vide No.B.Dis.ALN.SR(N) 179/1989-90 dated 29.5.1989 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and presently comes under the limits of BBMP, Ward No.129, Jnanabharathi Ward and bounded on: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 East by:30 feet Road; West by:Private property; North by:Site No.14; South by: Site No.12. 3. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 have filed Memorandum of Compromise Petition before this Court under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC. The appellant-plaintiff and respondent Nos.3 to 5 – defendant Nos.3 to 5 have agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement. 4. The appellant-plaintiff and respondent Nos.3 to 5 – defendant Nos.3 to 5 are physically present and have been identified by their respective counsel. 5. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between the parties, the appeal stands disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise Petition. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8083 RFA No. 2147 of 2022 ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby disposed of in terms of the Memorandum of Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 19.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.2198/2013 by the XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is modified and the suit is disposed of in terms of memorandum of compromise petition. (iii) The Registry of this Court is directed to refund the entire Court Fee paid on the memorandum of appeal back to the appellant. (iv) The Registry of the Trial Court is directed to refund the entire Court Fee paid on the memorandum of plaint back to the plaintiff. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0