- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1638 OF 2016 (INJ-) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O K.T.RAMANNA RESIDING AT N .17/1, 5TH 'A' CROSS, BAHUBALINAGARA, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 013. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAJATHURAI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT 2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O RAJATHURAI, 3. THE COMMISSIONER, B.B.M.P., N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGLAORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B.B.M.P., RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA DIVISION, NEAR J.P.PARK, BESIDE CHOWDESHWARI BUS STOP, BANGALORE - 560 013. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B.B.M.P., JALAHALLI DIVISION, BANGALORE - 560 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LOKESH S G., ADVOCATE C/R1, SRI. ASHWIN. S. HALADY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.10.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.4672/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE (CCH-60) AT BANGALORE CITY ON IA NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR WITHDRAWAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This present Regular First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, impugning the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2016, passed by the learned LIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-60), whereby the plaint of the appellant in O.S.No.4672/2015 was rejected and I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) was allowed. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court and have filed joint memo dated 25.04.2026, signed by the parties who are present in the Court and have been duly identified by their respective counsel. The terms of the settlement as set out in the joint memo reads as under: "JOINT MEMO FILED BY BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE RESPONDENT NO.1 The appellant and respondent No.1 respectfully submit as follows: 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed OS No.4672/2015 before the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH 60, Bangalore for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property. In the suit, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint. The said application having been allowed by the Trial Court ordered for rejection of plaint. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff filed the above appeal. 2. The Respondents No.1 has also filed OS No.8045/2015 against the original appellant in the above appeal for permanent injunction & Mandatory Injunction in respect of suit schedule-A property in the said suit. 3. During the pendency of the above appeal, with the intervention of the elders and neighbours the appellant and the Respondent No.1 have agreed to settle the dispute amicably. Accordingly, the appellant and the Respondent No.1 have decided to file this joint memo stipulating the terms of settlement. i. The Respondents No.1 has agreed that they would not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule-A property owned by the appellant (Legal representative of original plaintiff) which is more fully described in SCHEDULE- A of this compromise Petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 ii. The appellant(Legal representative of original plaintiff) has agreed that she would not interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property owned by the Respondent No.1 more fully described in SCHEDULE-B of this compromise petition. iii. The Respondents No.1/defendants No.1 has agreed to withdraw the suit in OS No.8045/2015 filed by him against the Appellant herein before the LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH 60, Bangalore. iv. The appellant and the respondents No.1 have agreed to withdraw the complaint filed by them against each other before the respondent No.4 by filing a representation producing the copy of the order in the above appeal. v. The appellant and the respondents No.1 have agreed to withdraw the allegations made by them in the complaints filed before the BBMP and other authorities and in the pleadings before the respective proceedings referred to supra. vi. Since the Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2 has no right title in respect of any of the properties involved in the suits and having no subsisting interest in the subject matter is not a necessary party to this compromise. vii. In the light of above compromise, the Legal representative of the original appellant who is brought on record in the present appeal (i.e. Smt.R.Bhagyalakshmi) is entitle to release of all the original documents - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 produced before the Trial Court which are in the safe custody. WHEREFORE, the appellant and the respondent No.1 respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispose of the above appeal in terms of the above compromise, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE-A Property belongs to plaintiff/Appellant All the piece and parcel of residential property bearing Municpal No.35(old No.17) situated at 5th A Cross Road, Bahubalinagara, Jalahalli, Bangalore having PID No.2-142-35, measuring East to West 30' and North to South 45' (Ad-measuring 1350 sq ft) together with residential house consisting of Ground, First and Part of Second Floor and bonded on the: East by : Property No.16 West by : Property No.18 belongs to Respondent No.1 North by : Road South by : Property belongs to Vinod SCHEDULE-B Property belongs to Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 All the piece and parcel of residential property bearing Municpal New No.8(old No.18/A) situated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23682-DB RFA No. 1638 of 2016 at 5th A Cross Road, Bahubalinagara, Jalahalli, Bangalore having PID No.2-142-8, measuring East to West (30'+29')/2, and North to South 45' ad- measuring 1327.5 sq ft together with residential house consisting of Ground, First and Part of Second Floor and bonded on the: East by : Property No.17 (Belongs to LR of appellant) West by : Property No.18/B North by : Road South by : Private Property" Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC in terms of the compromise. Let the decree be drawn. The appellant would be entitled to refund of 50% of the Court fee after admission. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn