Karnataka High Court
RFA/255/2017 of KRISHNA RAO Vs SRI JAYASHANKAR on 21 February 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:10816 RFA No. 255 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2017 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNA RAO S/O KASI RAO, SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1A. SMT. PREMABAI S.,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2017 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1.
KRISHNA RAO S/O KASI RAO,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1A.
SMT. PREMABAI S.,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
W/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO
1B.
MR. SANTOSH KUMAR K.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO
1C.
MR. SANDEEP KUMAR K.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O. LATE KRISHNA RAO
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.9
13TH E CROSS, CHOLURPALYA
GANESH TEMPLE ROAD
MAGADI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 023
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-C)
Digitally signed
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
SRI JAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O LATE C ASHWATHNARAYANA
R/AT NO 1ST CROSS, HOSAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGAR ,
BANGALORE - 560 040
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. VINAY G., ADVOCATE)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2016 PASSED IN
OS.NO.4807/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR POSSESSION
AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.IN TIMECF SUFFICIENTIA 1/17
FOR STAYIA 1/17 FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 5 OF CPC., PRAYING TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2016
PASSED
BY
THE
XIV
ADDITIONAL
CITY
CIVIL
JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY IN O.S.NO.4807/2008 SO AS TO MEET THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Both parties and advocates for both parties are present.
2. Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. All parties and their advocates have put their signatures. This application is also supported by verifying affidavit of Sri Sandeep Kumar.K and Sri A.Jayasankar. The contents of this compromise petition are read over and explained to both parties in the language known to them, that is, in Kannada language. Both parties have agreed that the terms and conditions of the compromise petition are entered into voluntarily without any coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud.
3. The said application reads as follows: The parties to the above most respectfully submit as follows:
1) This Appeal is by the defendant aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree dated 25.10.2016 passed in OS No.4807/2008 by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore(CCH- 28) by which the suit
HC-KAR
of the Respondent /Plaintiff came to be partly decreed directing, the appellant to handover the vacant possession within a period of six months from the date of decree and and ordered to remove the construction put up by the appellant by demolishing.
2) At the intervention of the well wishers and friends, the parties to this appeal have amicably settled the dispute among the following terms and conditions:
a) The Appellant agrees to handover the suit schedule property within a period of six months in as is where is condition commencing from 01.03.2026 to 01.09.2026,failing which the Respondent is at liberty to vacate the Appellants in accordance with law.
b) The Respondent agreed to pay sum of ₹18,00,000/- (Eighteen Lakhs only) as full and final settlement to the Appellants within a period of six months from 01.03.2026 to 01.09.2026, failing which he would pay an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the defaulted period and Appellants are entitled to be in possession of the suit schedulepropertyuntil full payment is received. Even if respondent paid full amount within six months still appellants vacating period from the property will be till 01.09.2026. Appellants are also at liberty to execute the Decree in accordance with law, in the event the Respondents fails to pay the amount as agreed.
c) Further, in the event, the Appellants fail to deliver suit schedule property as agreed above, the Respondent is at liberty to demolish the building and recover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property after the lapse of the agreed time. WHEREFORE, Appellants and Respondent humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispose of this Appeal in terms of the above
HC-KAR
compromise and draw Decree accordingly, so as to meet the ends of Justice."
4. This Court is satisfied as to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition which is accepted by both parties. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed in terms of compromise petition. The Court Fee paid by the appellant shall be returned to the appellant in accordance with law. The trial Court is also directed to refund the Court Fee paid by the respondent to him in accordance with law. Draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1