- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.808 OF 2010 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT. SHAHNAZ OMER W/O MOHAMMED OMER, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.40, 3RD CROSS, IST MAIN, VINOBANAGAR, ARABIC COLLEGE, POST. BANGALORE-560 045, REP.BY GPA HOLDER MOHAMMED UMMER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. P. RAVI S/O PILLAMARI, AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS, 2. SRI. H. CHANDRAHASA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, 3. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O H. CHANDRAHASA, AGE ABOUT: 43 YEARS, BOTH R/AT NAGAWARA VILLAGE, ARABIC COLLEGE, POST. BANGALORE, EAST. TALUK, BANGALORE-560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. M. JAGANNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; V/O DATED 28.01.2026 R1 IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:26.02.2010 PASSED BY THE XXVIII CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE IN O.S. NO.16242/2004 DISMISSING SUIT AND DECREE THE SAME AS PRAYED FOR OR; B) IN THE ALTERNATIVE IF THIS HON’BLE COURT WERE TO CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT, AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 THEN TO MODIFY THE DECREE DIRECTING THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RETURN OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT WITH DAMAGES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 passed by the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.16242/2004. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 of CPC is filed. The relevant terms of which are extracted as below: “APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE 3 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908. The Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submit as follows:- 1. That the Plaintiff / Appellant herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.16242/2004 before the City Civil Judge, at Mayo hall, Bangalore, against the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 / Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein for the relief of Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction and such other reliefs. 2. The Plaintiff / Appellant herein is claiming right, title, interest and possession over the Suit Schedule Property under an unregistered Sale Agreement dated 03/03/2004 from Defendant No.1 / Respondent No.1 [ Sri.P.Ravi] and four others, who had acquired the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property under a registered Partition Deed dated 02/07/2003 and registered Rectification Deed dated 02/04/2004. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 interfered with her possession alleging that Sri. Pillamari [ father of Defendant No.1] has executed a Power of Attorney - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 on 15/06/1993 in favour of Defendant No.3 and by virtue of the same Defendant No.3 sold the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.2, the said documents are forged and hence sought for Specific Performance and permanent injunction. 3. The Defendant No.1 / Respondent No.1 herein along with his father and other siblings were claiming right, title, interest and possession over the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property under a Sale Deed dated 03/10/1960 executed by Muthurayappa in favour of Smt.Nanjamma [grandmother of Defendant No.1] and after the death of Smt. Nanjamma revenue records were mutated in the name of her son Sri. Pillamari and thereafter under the partition between Sri.Pillamari and his sons including Defendant No.1, Suit Schedule Property is allotted to Defendant No.1 and he also admitted the execution of Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiff in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.1 also contended that his father Sri. Pillamari has not executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Defendant No.3 and the alleged Sale Deed dated 07/11/1997 in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property is a created document and sought for decree of the suit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 4. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 / Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed written statement contending that, Sri. Pillamari was the absolute owner of property measuring 200 feet x 25 feet, situated at Sarayi Palya, Thanisandra now called Vidyasagarnagar, Bangalore i.e., the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property and that the said Sri. Pillamari has executed a Power of Attorney and Sale Agreement dated 15/06/1993 in favour of Defendant No.3 and her children and that Defendant No.3 along with her children sold the same to Defendant No.2 as per registered Sale Deed dated 07/11/1997 and that Defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property and there is no cause of action and the Plaintiff has not got any right under the alleged Sale Agreement dated 03/03/2004 as alleged to have been executed by Defendant No.1, his father and children of Sri. Pillamari, who had no title to the Suit Schedule Property and sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.16242/2004 came to be dismissed as per judgment and decree dated 26/02/2010 and the present Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 6. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties in the present Appeal is in respect of property bearing Site No.3C [Northern half portion ] Katha No.316/1A, formed in Sy.No.66/5, situated at Thanisandra (Saraipalya), K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, now called Vidyasagarnagar, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 12½ feet, in all measuring 500 square feet, i.e., the Suit Schedule Property. 7. At the intervention of the well-wishers and friends of the Appellant and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to the Appeal have arrived at a settlement, which is morefully detailed below and the Plaintiff / Appellant and the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 / Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are accordingly submitting this compromise petition, requesting this Hon'ble Court to record the same and dispose the Appeal in terms of this compromise petition. 8. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant Nos.2 and 3/Respondent Nos.2 and 3 unconditionally withdraw their rival claims and allegations to facilitate this compromise. 9. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 /Respondent Nos.2 and 3 hereby agree and accept to declare their respective rights and enjoyment in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property to the plaint in the following manner :- a) Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.2 hereby declare, confirm and affirm that under this compromise the Plaintiff / Appellant has a 7.14285% i.e., approximately 7% undivided share, right, title and interest in the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property and that the Defendant No.2 Respondent No.2 has a 50% undivided share, right, title and interest in the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property. b) Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.2 herein, hereby agree and undertake to jointly sell the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property along with the other four Appellants [Sri.S.A.Khaliq Ahmed] in RFA.No.927/2010, [ Sri.Ahmed Khan ] in RFA.No.809/2010, [Smt.Zahida Begum] in RFA.No.924/2010 and [ Sri.Syed Kaleem Ahmed ] in RFA.No.928/2010 and share the sale proceeds according to their respective shares in the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property. It is hereby agreed by the parties herein that Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.2 [ Sri.H.Chandrahasa ] shall be the Vendor and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 Plaintiff / Appellant herein and the other Appellants in the other Appeals referred supra shall subscribe their respective signatures as Consenting Witnesses to the Sale Deed to be executed in respect of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property in favour of any intending Purchaser/s. 10. It is hereby agreed between the parties herein that the sale of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property shall be made within a period of six (6) months from the date of this Compromise after finding a suitable Purchaser and sell the same for the maximum price offered by the prospective Purchaser and Share the sale among accordingly. 11. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant No.2 /Respondent No.2 hereby have arrived at a compromise which is equitable and agreeable to both parties herein. 12. The Defendant No.3 / Respondent No.3 has no objection for disposing the present Appeal in terms of this Compromise Petition. 13. The Plaintiff / Appellant admits and declares that apart from her 7.14285% i.e., approximately 7% undivided share in the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property, she does not have any kind - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 of right, title, interest over the remaining extent of the larger property. 14. The Plaintiff / Appellant hereby declares and undertakes not to claim absolute right, title, interest or possession against the Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.2 over the Suit Schedule Property based on her Sale Agreement dated 03/03/2004. 15. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant No.2 /Respondent No.2 further undertake that they shall not have any future claim whatsoever to any extent whatsoever against each other, apart from what is stated above in respect of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property. 16. It is hereby specifically agreed between the parties herein that the Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.2 [Sri.H.Chandrahasa] is at liberty to get the transfer/change/rectify the revenue records in respect of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property into his name and also obtain the E-Khata and pay all taxes in respect of the said property. The Appellant / Plaintiff further undertakes to co-operate with Defendant No.2 / Respondent No.2 before the concerned authority and also undertakes to pay her share of monies expended by Defendant No.2 /Respondent No.2 for the aforesaid - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 purposes, including brokerage charges for sale of the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property. 17. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant No.2 /Respondent No.2 hereby agree, undertake, declare, confirm and acknowledge, the good right, full power and absolute authority and the title of each other to convey, sell and transfer the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property in favour of any intending Purchaser/s as morefully stated supra and share the sale proceeds according to their respective shares in the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property. 18. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 /Respondent Nos.2 and 3 undertake to execute all other document/s or letter/s or no-objection etc., if necessary, in order to give effect to the terms of this compromise petition. 19. The Plaintiff / Appellant and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 /Respondent Nos.2 and 3 declare that they have not done any act or deeds or things which will prejudice their respective rights in the larger property including the Suit Schedule Property. In case of any claims by the parties claiming under the Plaintiff / Appellant or Defendant Nos.2 and 3 / Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the respective parties agree to answer the same and undertake to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 indemnify and keep indemnified the aggrieved parties from such claims and demands. 20. The above compromise is entered/signed by the parties out of their free will and volition and the same is without any threat, coercion or undue influence. Wherefore the Appellant and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record the compromise petition, set-aside the judgment and decree dated 26/02/2010 passed in O.S.No.16242/2004 and dispose the Appeal in terms of the compromise petition and further order for refund of the court fee paid by the Appellant, in the interest of justice and equity. LARGER PROPERTY INCLUDING SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY: All that piece and parcel of House Property bearing House List Khata No.819 [ formed in Sy.No.66/5 having Khata No.2760/819], situated at Thanisandra, (Saraipalya) now called Vidyasagarnagar, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring East to West: 200 feet and North to South: 25 feet, in all measuring 5000 square feet and bounded on the :- East by -Government Road. West by :-Private Property. North by :-Private Property; South by :-Private Property.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5615 RFA No. 808 of 2010 3. It appears that in terms of the compromise, the plaintiff and the defendants have recognized their undivided share, right, title and interest in the suit property. 4. The parties have affixed their signatures to the compromise petition and they are identified by their respective counsel who have joined the proceedings through video conference. The terms of the compromise are perused and the same is accepted as they are not opposed to any law. 5. Consequently, the suit filed in O.S.No.16242/2004 on the file of the XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore as well as this appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise petition. Office is directed to draw a decree in terms of the compromise petition. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BL/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 19.4