The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1920 OF 2017 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G MOHAMMED RAFEE AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI V M GANI R/AT NO. 19 NAGANATHAPRUA BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE-100 (BY MISS.LEKHA JAIN ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SIDDHARTH …APPELLANT Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SUMAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT B R ASHALATHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, D/O LATE B R RADHAKRISHNA RESIDING AT NO.18/8 NEAR IYAPPA TEMPLE 4TH CROSS HOSAPALYA ROAD, R R LAYOUT MANAGAMANAPALYA BANGALORE-560 068 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 2. SMT LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/O LATE B R RADHAKIRSHNA RESIDING AT NO.18/8 NEAR IYAPPA TEMPLE 4TH CROSS HOSAPALYA ROAD, R R LAYOUT, MANGAMANAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 068
Legal Reasoning
3. The Appellant purchased under a registered sale deed dated 28.02.2006 executed in his favour by the Respondent No 1 and 2, sites bearing Nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 & 40 situated at Naganathapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said deed is registered in office of the Sub Registrar, Bengaluru South Taluk as (S), Document bearing No: BNG(U) BLR 17761/05-06 dated 28.02.2006, Volume No._, Book No.1 The Suit Schedule A Property in O.S. No.2077/2006 was site bearing No.35, while the Suit Schedule B Property in O.S. No.2077/2006 are the sites No 36 & 37, and there is no dispute relating to other sites in the composite property i.e Site No 38, 39 & 40 and both parties admit that the Appellant is the absolute owner in lawful, possession and enjoyment. The Sites bearing No 35, 36 & 37, which are subject matter of the said suit, are morefully described hereunder as the Compromise Schedule A Property and Compromise Schedule B Property hereinafter referred to as the Compromise Schedule A and B Property. 4 The Appellant and the Respondent No 5(a) to (c), and Respondent No.7 submit that in terms of this settlement/compromise they agree, confirm, and admit to the following: i. by Smt.B.R Ashalatha The sale deed dated 28.02.2006, and executed Smt.Lalithamma in favour of the Appellant herein in respect of the Compromise Schedule A and B Property bearing Document registration No. BAS- 1-17761-2005-06, Book-1 and stored in CD No. BASD221 dated 28.2.2006 is valid, subsisting and binding on the Appellant and the parties to the said sale deed; and the Respondents 3 to 8 do not have any semblance of right, share, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 claim, title or interest in respect of the properties mentioned in the said sale deed ii. The sale deed dated 20.02.2006 executed by Sri. Venktasswamy Reddy, S/o P.T. Narayana Reddy Mr. Govinda Reddy, S/o P.T. Narayana Reddy, Mr. Nagaraj Reddy, S/o P.T. Narayana Reddy, and Mr. Babu Reddy, S/o P.T. Narayana Reddy i.e. Respondents Nos 3, 4, 5 favour of V.Munireddy, S/o and 6 in erstwhile Venkataswamy Reddy Respondent No 7 herein in respect of the Compromise Schedule A Property registered as Document No. BAS-1-16740-2005-06 stored in CD No. BASD218, Book-1 dated 20-02-2006 registered the Sub-Registrar (Bangalore South) Bengaluru, is null and void and has absolutely nothing to do with the Compromise Schedule Property in office of the i.e iii. The sale deed dated 06.09.2006 executed by Sri.M. Babu Menon, S/o Sri. Madhavan, ie Respondents No 8 in favour of Sri. N. Nagaraj Reddy, S/o P.T.Narayan Reddy, i.e the erstwhile Respondent No 5 herein in respect of the Compromise Schedule B Property registered as Document No. BAS-1-15289-2006- 07 stored in CD No. BASD27 Book-1 dated 06- 09-2006 registered in office of the Sub-Registrar (Bangalore South) Bengaluru, is null and void and has absolutely nothing to do with the Compromise Schedule Property 5. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri.V Munireddy 1.e. Respondent No. 7 hereby also admit and confirm as under a. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V Munireddy i.e. Respondent No.7 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 past, relinquish/release unequivocally present and future claim they may have in respect of the Compromise Schedule Properties in favour of the Appellant. any b. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 i.e. Smt. Shanthamma, W/o late Nagaraja Reddy, Sri. Mohan Reddy, S/o late Nagaraja Reddy and Sri. Arun Reddy, S/o late Nagaraja Reddy and Sri. V Munireddy ie Respondent No. 7 unequivocally confirm that the description of the Compromise/Suit Schedule A and B Properties i.e., property bearing site Nos 35, 36 & 37 having Katha No 46 situated at Naganathapura Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, as described in the Compromise Schedule A and B Property are true and accurate and they have no title or interest whatsoever in respect of the same and have not derived any right, title or interest in the Compromise Schedule A Property and the Compromise Schedule B Property by virtue of the sale deed dated 20.02.2006 and 06.09.2006 respectively. c. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri V Munireddy ie. Respondent No.7 hereby release, discharge, grant, convey. transfer and assure unto and to the use of the Appellant, any past, present and future claim in Properties the and (Compromise Compromise Schedule B Property as the case maybe) and every part thereof absolutely and forever in favour of Appellant. Schedule A Compromise Schedule Property d. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri V Munireddy i.e Respondent No.7 further covenant that from now on the Appellant shall continue to enjoy absolute unhindered - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 possession and enjoyment of the Compromise Schedule Properties (Compromise Schedule A Property and Compromise Schedule B Property as the case maybe) as the whole, full and absolute owner, without any title or claim in any manner Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V Munireddy i.e. Respondent No.7 or from any of their heirs or their representatives etc. whatsoever from the e. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V.Munireddy i.e. Respondent No. 7 further confirm that they will not raise any past or future claim in respect of the Compromise Schedule Properties. f. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V Munireddy i.e. Respondent No.7 further undertake to do or cause to be done all such acts, deeds and things and even join as consenting witnesses in any deeds executed in favour of any third party by the Appellant or his nominee whenever occasion demands and more perfectly assures and confirms this compromise and to indemnify the Appellant, against all claims, demands suits, losses incurred and damages sustained for and on account of any breach of the said covenants or any one of them 6. The Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V.Munireddy i.e Respondent No.7 confirm that the Compromise Schedule A and B Properties as described hereunder, are the Appellant's absolute property by virtue of the sale deed dated 28.02.2006 and in terms of this compromise. The Compromise Schedule A and B Properties belongs to the Appellant exclusively and absolutely in terms of this compromise, and he is entitled to hold the same as the absolute - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 fit. The Legal owner along with his legal heirs, with full liberty to deal with the same in any manner as he deems representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V Munireddy i.e. claiming or Respondent No.7 through/under these Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V Munireddy i.e. Respondent No.7 have no right, share or interest in the Compromise Schedule Properties as described in this compromise petition respect of anybody 7. All the parties hereby expressly and unconditionally undertake that they will not file any new cases/complaints/petitions against each other on any score whatsoever in respect of the lis in the present appeal 8. This settlement made under this compromise in terms stated herein is irrevocable and shall not be disputed, challenged or re- opened under any circumstances by reason of any error or omission or inequality or for any reason whatsoever by the parties or their legal heirs or any persons claiming through or under them, respectively. 9. That the Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V. Munineddy i.e. Respondent No.7 thereto do hereby agree and declare that the compromise effected is just and equitable and in mutual interest of all parties and that the Appellant has not secured or derived any advantage over the Legal representatives of Respondent No 5 and Sri. V. Munireddy i.e. Respondent No.7 and this compromise reflects the true intention of the parties. COMPROMISE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 Compromise Schedule A Property All that piece and parcel of the vacant site No 35, Khatha No.46 situated at Naganathapura village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on the: East by: Site No.34 West by: Site No.36 North By: Road South by: Site No 40 Compromise Schedule B Property All that piece and parcel of the vacant site No.36 and 37, Khatha No.46 situated at Naganathapura village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 40 feet, total, and bounded on the East by: Site No.34 West by: Site No 35 North By: Road South by Site No 40 PRAYER WHEREFORE, the Appellant and Legal representatives of Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.7 named hereunder humbly pray - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the above suit in terms of this compromise petition, in the interests of justice and equity 2. The contents of the compromise petition are read over, and explained to the parties. They accepted the terms and conditions in the memorandum of compromise petition, and prays to dispose of the appeal, in terms of the compromise petition. 3. The Compromise petition is taken on record. 4. The appeal is disposed of, in terms of compromise. 5. The Office is directed to draw the decree in terms of the Compromise petition. 6. The Office is directed to refund the Court fee as per Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 in favour of the appellant. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 7. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.A's, does not survive for consideration.
Arguments
3. SRI VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE P T NARAYANA REDDY R/AT NO.68 NEW MICO AND CJI, OPPOSITE E POST NAGANATHAPURA BANGALORE-100 4. SRI GOVINDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE P T NARAYANA REDDY R/AT NO 68 NEW MICO AND CJI OPPOSITE E POST NAGANATHAPURA BANGALORE-100 5. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 5(a) SMT.SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O LATE NAGARAJA REDDY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 5(b) SRI.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS S/O LATE NAGARAJA REDDY 5( c) SRI.ARUN REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O LATE NAGARAJA REDDY ALL RESIDING AT NO.68, NEW MICO AND CJI, OPP. 'E' POST, NAGANATHAPURA BANGALORE - 560100. 6. SRI BABU REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE P T NARAYANA REDDY R/AT NO.68 NEW MICO AND CJI OPPOSITE E POST NAGANATHAPURA BANGALORE-100 7. SRI V MUNIREDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY R/AT DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST ELECTRONIC CITY BANGALORE-100 8. SRI M BABU MENON AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O SRI M MADHAVAN RESIDING AT NO.53 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 AGRAHARA HOSUR MAIN ROAD BOMMANAHALLI BANGALORE …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K FOR C/R5(A TO C). R1, R2 ARE SERVED V.O DATED 26.04.2025 NOTICE TO R3, R4, R6 TO R8 IS D/W (SRI.SIDDAPPA.V.D FOR R7., ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DTD11.07.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.145/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD24.08.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.2077/06 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT The Appellant, and the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5 (a to c) and respondent No.7 are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. They filed a memorandum of compromise petition, which reads as under: 1 Being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 11.07.2017, passed by the Court of VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in R.A. No 145/2016, whereunder the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgement and decree dated 24.08.2016 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in OS. No.2077/2006 whereunder the suit filed by the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed, the appellant has preferred this Regular Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court. 2. At the intervention of common friends, elders in the family, relatives and well-wishers, the parties out of their own free will and clear conscience without any compulsion or coercion from any person whosoever have arrived at this is detailed below. The settlement, which of representatives Appellant Respondent No.5 i.e., Respondent Nos. 5(a) to (c) are accordingly submitting this compromise petition, requesting this Hon'ble Court to record the same and pass appropriate order in terms of this compromise petition. Legal and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:18115 RSA No. 1920 of 2017
Decision
Accordingly, they are disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE RCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3