IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1335/2012

BETWEEN:

G. PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA, HOLY MONTHER SCHOOL COMPOUND, JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR, BENGALOORU – 560 075

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI G.S. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI BABU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA, FLAT # 10, RAMYA REGENCY, JEEVAN BHIMANAGR, BENGALOORU – 560 075.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.R. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR C/R)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC. 96, READ WITH O-46 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 02.11.2010 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 15249/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION & PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The instant appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 15249/2005. Since, there is delay in filing the appeal, IA. No. 1/12 is filed seeking condonation of delay.

2. The respondent has entered caveat.

3. At this stage, the parties have entered into a compromise with regard to the suit schedule property. Since, the appeal is to be considered in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, the learned counsel for the respondent does not indicate any objection for condoning the delay. Accordingly, IA. No. 1/12 is allowed, the delay is condoned.

4. A perusal of the papers would indicate that the plaintiff was before the Court below in the instant suit seeking for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and has also sought for protecting his possession. After considering the rival contentions, the Court below has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, insofar as the declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner of the property which has been granted, the defendant had assailed the said finding of the Court below in this appeal. However, the parties have now entered into a compromise and out of the property which has been declared as the property being in the ownership of the plaintiff, certain arrangement have been made with regard to a flat being given in favour of the appellant herein as contained in Para 4 and 5 of the Compromise Petition filed under Order 23 and Rule 3.

5. Further, with regard to the open extent of land, the parties have agreed that the same would be given for joint development and the developed property would be apportioned among themselves as contained in Para 7 of the Compromise Petition. Since, the parties are present before this Court and have admitted to the compromise

3

entered between them, there is nothing unlawful indicated there to. Hence, the compromise is accepted, the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2010 shall now stand modified in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.

6. Hence, accepting the compromise, the appeal stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

ST*

4