KARNATAKA v. BANGALORE 560027

SHRI. MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS DAUGHTER 1(a) MANGALA VENKATESH D/O LATE MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

2. SMT. SHARADHA MANOHAR W/O. MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021

3. SRI. M MANJUNATH KUMAR S/O. MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO. 462/34, 12TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE 560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH V – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1(a), 2 & 3; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.04.2025, RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DELETED) - THIS RFA FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W SEC.96 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN OS.No.1012/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. IN RFA NO. 936/2021 BETWEEN:

2. INDER BOHRA S/O LATE C S PANNALAL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO 17/2, CAMPBELL ROAD BANGALORE – 5600047. PRAMILA BOHRA W/O INDER BOHRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.17/2, CAMPBELL ROAD BANGALORE – 560 047. (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S V - ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 AND:

1. SHRI. MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS DAUGHTER 1(a) SMT. MANGALA VENKATESH D/O LATE MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

3. SMT SHARADA MANOHAR W/O MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS SRI MANJUNATH KUMAR S/O MANOHAR SHANKAR GOUD AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT 462/34 12TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE – 560027. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH V – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1(a), 2 & 3) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.9963/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) These appeals are preferred by the respective appellants against the common judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.1012/2008 and O.S.No.9963/2015 dated 26.02.201 by urging various grounds.

2. Sri Giridhar S.V, learned counsel for respective appellants in both these matters is present. Sri Manjunath S.V, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 is present. Appellant namely Mr.Inder Bohra and Mr.Manohar, LR of deceased respondent No.1 are present.

3. In these matters both appellant and respondents have filed memorandum of compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908. The same reads as under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 The appellant and the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectfully submit as under:-

1. The Appellants and the Respondents on the advice of their friends, relatives and well-wishers and out of their own will and volition without any element of misrepresentation, fraud, coercive, or undue influence have entered into the present compromise to ensure that the litigation is resolved amicably. It is agreed between the parties that the present compromise is arrived at after securing due legal advice from their respective counsels and being aware of the merits and demerits of the respective case.

2. The Appellant has institute the present Regular First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore dated 26th February 2021 in Original Suit No.1012/2008. Whereunder, the Appellant suffered a Decree of Eviction.

3. The suit was originally instituted by one Mr.Manohar Shankar Goud, his wife and son, who are the Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3. The said Manohar Shankar Goud expired on 27.09.2023 and the copy of the Death Certificate is produced herewith as at Annexure-A to the present joint memo. The Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 being the wife and son of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 Plaintiff No.1 and who are the Respondent 2 and 3 to the present proceedings are the legal representatives of the respondent No.1.

4. The Appellant on the one hand and the Respondent 2 and 3 have settled all their disputes and differences amongst themselves. It is respectfully submitted that subsequent to the Judgment and Decree impugned in the present Appeal, the Respondents 1, 2 and 3 instituted Execution Petition No.1556/2021 on the file of the Court of the City, Civil Judge and in pursuance thereof, secured vacant possession of the Schedule Property. Subsequently, the further execution of the judgment and Decree passed, and which is impugned in the present Appeal, was stayed by this Hon’ble Court subject to certain conditions.

5. The Respondent No. 1 along with the Respondent No.2 and 3, in addition to the institution of the above suit, the judgment of which is impugned in the present Appeal, instituted proceedings before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate registered as CC.No.14396/2013.

6. The parties have agreed to mutually settle the disputes amongst themselves, whereby the Appellant herein withdraws the present Memorandum of Regular First Appeal and does not challenge the Judgment and Decree passed in favour of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 Respondents. Similarly, the Respondents have agreed that the proceedings initiated by them in CC.No.14296/2013 pending adjudication on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be dismissed as settled and withdrawn by referring these proceedings to the appropriate Lok-Adalat.

7. It is further agreed that the Respondents, in view of the withdrawal of the present appeal and the connected appeal in Regular First Appeal No.936/2021, the parties shall file an appropriate Memo before the concerned Court in Execution Petition No.1556/2021 confirming full satisfaction of Judgment Decree passed O.S.No.1012/2008 and O.S.No.9963/2015, memo which is already executed between the parties.

8. It is agreed between the parties that the amount and deposit by the appellant shall be withdrawn by the Appellant and order for refund of permissible Court fee. Wherefore, the Appellant on the one hand and the Respondents on the other respectfully pray that the present Appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn, recording the mentioned settlement between the parties of the present Regular First Appeal; the satisfaction of the Judgment and Decree impugned in the present - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 proceedings by way of the Execution Petition and the settlement of the proceedings III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate registered CC.No.14396/2013, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. The compromise petition filed by the counsel for the parties is taken on record. The parties to the compromise are appraised with the terms and conditions stated therein. They have subscribed their signatures by agreeing to the terms of compromise without any force or coercion. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the compromise petition filed, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeals are disposed of. The judgment and decree rendered by the XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru O.S.No.1012/2008 and O.S.No.9963/2015 dated 26.02.2021 are confirmed. Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of the compromise. In pursuance of the compromise entered into between the parties, Registry is directed to refund the Court fee to the appellants on due identification. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17355-DB RFA No. 935 of 2021 C/W RFA No. 936 of 2021 Further, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel Sri Giridhar S.V, issues between the appellant and respondents would be rest it and directed to sum up any correspondence made between appellant and respondents if required and proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RJ