Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2070 (KAR)

J. Venkatesh v. Anasuya

2020-10-16

ARAVIND KUMAR, SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar, J. - This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8236/2015 dated 01.09.2020 by the 20th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, whereunder suit filed for declaration and injunction came to be decreed and plaintiff came to be declared as the absolute owner of schedule property and defendant has been directed to vacate the schedule property and surrender vacant possession of same to the plaintiff within one moth from the said date. 2. Learned advocates appearing for parties on previous date of hearing had submitted that they would be reporting settlement by today. Hence, at their request, matter came to be adjourned and a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC has been filed on 14.10.2020. Terms agreed to between parties under the compromise arrived at reads as under: "1. The appellant had respondent unconditionally withdraw the allegations made by them against each other in the suit and appeal. 2. The appellant agree to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule premises to the respondent/plaintiff within 9 months from 01.11.2020. 3. The respondent/plaintiff agree to give 9 months time to the appellant/defendant as stated above to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property on or before 01.08.2021. 4. In view of the amicable settlement out of court the appellant prays to refund the court fee paid on the appeal to the appellant so also the court fee paid by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.8236/2015 to the plaintiff. 5. The terms of the compromise petition have been translated to Kannada and explained to both the parties and after understanding the terms of the compromise petition and both the parties have signed the compromise petition on their own volition without any compulsion." 3. Both parties have appeared through video conference and they agree and admit the execution of compromise petition. They have also submitted that after their respective learned advocates read over the contents of the compromise petition and explained to them in Kannada language, they have affixed their signatures to the compromise petition voluntarily without any force, thereat or coercion. 4. Learned Advocates appearing for parties have identified the parties, who have digitally appeared. They have also submitted that after their respective learned advocates read over the contents of the compromise petition and explained to them in Kannada language, they have affixed their signatures to the compromise petition voluntarily without any force, thereat or coercion. 4. Learned Advocates appearing for parties have identified the parties, who have digitally appeared. They have also submitted before the Court that during the course of the day, photo identity cards of parties (photocopies) issued by statutory authorities would be uploaded for being placed in this appeal. Their submission and undertaking is placed on record. In token of having identified the parties who have digitally appeared, learned advocates have also affixed their signatures to the compromise petition. Parties, who have appeared through video conference have admitted that compromise is entered into voluntarily out of their own free will and volition. In that view of matter, there is no impediment for this court to accept the compromise and accordingly, it is accepted. 5. Respondent has also submitted that she is not insisting for payment of rents or damages for the period to which appellant has agreed to occupy the suit schedule property till he vacates and she has also consented for court fee paid on appeal memo to be refunded to the appellant. Appellant has agreed that court fee paid by respondent - plaintiff before trial court can be refunded to the respondent. 6. In light of the aforestated facts, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER a. Appeal stands disposed off in terms of compromise petition and judgment and decree passed by the 20th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City dated 01.09.2020 in O.S.No.8236/2015 dated 01.09.2020, shall stand substituted to the terms specified in the compromise petition entered into between parties. b. Registry is directed to draw-up decree in terms of compromise petition. c. Registry of this court is directed to issue cheque for Rs.2,10,005/- which is the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the appellant on proper identification. d. Office of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru City, is directed to refund court fee of Rs.1,80,400/- to plaintiff/respondent by issuing cheque in her favour in light of settlement arrived at between parties and on identification of respondent/plaintiff. In view of appeal having been disposed of, I.A.1/2020 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and it stands rejected.