CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 01 KAR CK 0061

C. Sreedharan, C/o Gopalan Enterprises, Dead by LRS.(1(a) K.P. Kamalam, 1(b) K.P. Sreekala vs Manjunath K and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 6 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narayana Swamy, J · K. L. Manjunath, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Regular First Appeal No. 578 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

The appellants and the 1st Respondent have filed a Compromise Petition. The other Respondents have no interest in the appeal. Therefore, the counsel for the appellants and Respondent No. 1 who is a party in person and who is also a member of this Bar submit that the Compromise Petition may be taken and disposed of as Respondent No. 1 has agreed to confirm the title of the appellants.

2.

In the circumstances, the Compromise Petition is taken on record.

3.

The Compromise Petition is signed by the Power of Attorney holder of the appellants and their Advocates. It is also signed by the 1st Respondent who is also a member of this Bar. He has been identified by Sri, Krishna Murhty, who is appearing for the appellants-1(a) to 1(d).

4.

The Respondent No. 1 who is present before the court admits the execution of the Compromise Petition. Similarly, the Power of Attorney Holder of the appellants is also admitting the execution of the Compromise.

5.

The Respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff before the court below admits that the appellants are the absolute owner of plaint schedule-1 and 1(a) and the schedule property mentioned in the written statement filed by the appellant. The 1st Respondent has no right, title, interest or claim over the aforesaid property.

6.

Considering the amount spent by the Respondent-1 on this litigation, the appellants have agreed to reimburse the cost of litigation which has been paid by the appellants to the Respondent and for which the 1st Respondent has executed a separate receipt. In terms of the same, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and decree passed by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S.No. 16502/2002 dt.5.1.2005 is hereby set aside so far as the claim made by the 1st Respondent against the appellants herein and further declare that the appellants are absolute owner of schedule item No. 1 and 1(a) and the property mentioned in the written statement filed by the original appellant.

Registry is directed to draw the modified decree.