The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10720 RSA No. 1683 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1683 OF 2022 (SP) BETWEEN: D. ONKARAPPA S/O DHUTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. AREHALLY VILLAGE, MATHODU HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: ONKARAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SHANTHAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, MATHODU HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577 527 Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.75/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10720 RSA No. 1683 of 2022 DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.02.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.66/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HOSADURGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT The Appellant and respondent are physically present before the Court, and they are identified by their respective counsels. 2. The appellant and respondent have filed a compromise petition, which reads as under: 1. That the respondent herein is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, the respondent was entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.11.2014 agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties for total sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration and delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule properties. 2. That the appellant herein filed the Original Suit for specific performance of contract in O.S. No.66/2016 (Old No.36/2015) before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosadurga, the said suit came to be partly allowed refusing to grant specific performance and directed the respondent defendant to refund the advance amount of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10720 RSA No. 1683 of 2022 Rs.5,00,000/- vide 14.02.2019. judgment and decree dated 3. That the appellant herein being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. 66/2016 filed the regular appeal before Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in R.A. No.75/2019, the said appeal was came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2022. 4. That the appellant filed the above regular second appeal before this Hon'ble Court questioning the findings recorded by both the courts below, this Hon'ble court considering the case made out by the appellant admitted the appeal for consideration of substantial question of law. 5. That during the pendency of the above Appeal, the appellant and respondent at the interference of villagers, elders and well wishers have decided to settle the dispute between them amicably, without there being any undue influence, coercion and with their free will and volition. 6. That the appellant and respondent herein have agreed to settle the dispute in the following terms: (a) That the plaintiff/ appellant would be entitled for specific performance of contract in respect of suit item No.2 bearing Sy.No.4/48, measuring to an extent of 02 acres 20 guntas situated at Siddagondanahalli Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. (b) That the respondent / defendant has agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff / appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and decree in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.4/48, measuring to an extent of 02 acres 20 guntas situated at Siddagondanahalli Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. (c) That the plaintiff / appellant has agreed to give up his claim in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.4/40, measuring to an extent of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10720 RSA No. 1683 of 2022 02 acres 20 guntas situated at Siddagondanahalli Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. (d) That the appellant / plaintiff shall not have any claim in future in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.4/40, measuring to an extent of 02 acres 20 guntas situated at Siddagondanahalli Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District owned by the respondent / defendant herein. (e) That the respondent / defendant, or her successors or any other persons acting through her would not have any claim in future against the plaintiff / appellant in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.4/48, measuring to an extent of 02 acres 20 guntas situated at Siddagondanahalli Village, Mathodu Hobli, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District. Wherefore, the appellant and respondent herein most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to modify the Judgment and Decree passed by Special 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga in R.A. No.75/2019 dated 15.07.2022 and Judgment and Decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosadurga in O.S. No.66/2016 (Old No.36/2015) dated 14.02.2019 and decreed the suit of the appellant in terms of Compromise entered into between the parties and that the Compromise Petition shall form part of the Decree, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The contents of the compromise petition is read over and explained to the parties in the Kannada Language known to them. They have accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the compromise petition, and prays to dispose of the appeal, in terms of the compromise petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10720 RSA No. 1683 of 2022 4. The compromise petition is taken on record. 5. The Appeal is disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. 6. The Office is directed to draw a decree in terms of compromise petition, and refund the Court fee in favor of the appellant as per Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, on proper identification. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT:SNN