1 .. V _`'~ 4
* , »»A»-- ° Q
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KA¤?.NATAKA`AT BANOA~l,CR.E·; · I DATED THIS THEIQTH APRITL, 20}
B'··e`r.o~Ri$v --`_' I .
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE .\ZE_NUGO`PAl2A GOWDA ISH 2008
44 ``V`` ·,_V ·
Smt. Racjharnma, ' .74* - 4 V W/o. late Chikkaiah, "
Aged 72 years, R/o. .D.`llo.·869, Behind, Siddappaji Temple,
_, ._Lashl<a_r Mohalla, __ _.
* _ Mysore -*5-70 001.
" __ V ` APPELLANT
4 (By Sri G. Balaltrishna Shastry, Adv.) `I., AND. ,11_"V 42_ _l·_. I
4 I 4 --. .; i _ __l. . S/o__. late Ramaiah, ` '--.4 '·--. 4 . Aged 82 years. Leelavathi,
D/o. M.R. Lakshmaiah,
» W/o. C.N.Nagaiah,
" . Aged about 40 years.
Both are R/at D.No.868,
Behind Siddappaji Temple,
Kumbarageri, Lashkar Mohalla,
Mysore -- 570 001.
(By Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, Adv. for C/R1--R2)
This RSA is filed under 5.100 of CPC again·st=t`he" _ Judgement & Decree dated 19.09.2007 pa·ssed_nin R.A.No.46/1998 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge, l`'` · (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Mysore, allowing the appeal. andsetting ' Y. aside the Judgement and Decree dated 12_.12.19_9`7.passed ` ._ ` , in O.S.No.1113/1994 on the file of the IAddl.eI Civil Judge f *»_g ` (Jr. Dn.), Mysore. --_ i ` * _P , ._ ' ` This appeal coming on for orders this day,_th.e` Court · I delivered the following: '
1S* defendant in O.S.1¥lo..11»1,§i[199j4·Ion the file of I Addl. I Civil M`yso`reV,"'i's the appellant. Respondents in1st.i.tVu_tVedl`tiie swuitjagainst the appellant and another, tlo°pass'~a judgment and decree of perpetual injunction ifestraining'jtiie`defe`ndants or anybody claiming through themfrom `interfering with the peaceful enjoyment " of the claim or dumping rubbish materials and from Z lettinglwalstevlwater to flow in the open space etc. The suit A having been contested, after trial, was dismissed by the _ ` 'V··I"éjlleagrned Trial Judge. Plaintiffs having filed first appeal i.e., ''--. l _'W- Q V`'i _R.·A.No..'46/1998 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & CJM, V`_` I Mysore, the appeal was allowed. Judgment and decree .A'· V. __ll '· --·V_A_ "passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the suit was
decreed. Said Judgment and decree has been quagiimi _ bV the 1st defendant. 1''` ·V,4
2. This appeal was admitifeldf on C 4r-_ A consider the following substantialquestion- of law: 2 V "Whether the Judgment ofthe lower appellate. Court Q is vitiated for noii;consider'a.tion'fof theweffect of partition deed at EXQPQ and saleideed at Ex.P5? "
3. Learned sides having
submitted that there"?lare·i.ei!.ernerits'of. settlement and the matter mayiibegiireferred to2"Bangalore Mediation Centre, to explore the éoftsettlement, the matter was referred to Tiiewlpairtiifes having appeared before the --.BMC,ya'the_vq` have arrived at an amicable settlement and have'e.ntered_'·i.nto_ an agreement under 5.89 of CPC read witn R°ules`~*W24.*, and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure V · `(Mediation); Ptules, 2005. The BMC has forwarded the said v_ QVV.;i'gr1eem_en`t along with enclosures.
Advocate Sri G.B. Shastry. The respondents have"thus` _ discharged the commitment of payment of ?1,00}100]--i.`as _`'` ~ ~i»4 _ appearing in Clause (6) of the memornd_um'_"ofVagreewment ` ._ dated 3003.2012. VVVW '·t¤
7. The compromise entered into by the parties is lawful and can be accepted,. Hencei,.._th.e'·memorandum of agreement dated 30.03.2012 Vlatif the Mediation Centre, Bangalore°islplacedion`: re'cord`.·--Th·e appeal stands dismissed in _.oft'he isai'dllWVa'greernent. Draw decree V
Parties to 3 beartheir--respective costs. . i n c Sd/·
d c .»..i$¤¤* L --`e