IN THE HIGH couwr OF KARNATAKA AT EANGALQEEE
DATED THIS THE 20'"! DAY 01+' MARCH E.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I'IOE SHABDULA NAzEEE;;ViE
1 an n an. --.-----r
PEGUI.-. P FIR!-3'?' A. PF'-A.!..:'i*.I¢;7I}*12 mu *
BETWEEN :
1 M/S. KAISAR-I-Hm_D'%~-DEPOT., "
APAErNEEsHIPEIEM-
REPRESENTED BY Jfljs !?AR'_I'I€ER"~. ~
sRI.M.R.sE11§IvAsAN~..'¢ ' * '
N0 983i'C3'H,CKPE$P =i
EANQ1.-o.RE:g. 560 053 _ _
2 SR1. MER;»-EEINIVAEAN.
MAa0R'1:
is/0. .M;R,..--vSINGRAcH.AHR. ;
r~1o.=9ss;cmc;<EE'1*»__
BANGLOREV-' E50 053
3 _ _SMT. Ivf.R. Y.A.DUGIRi
MAJOR
A I;).[O..__M.R. SIN-GRACHAR
9138; C!-IIC.K_.PE'I'
A _ EAE59
em
E
/O. LATE KOTA KAMAKSHAIAH
I0.
. N0. 12/33
1sr 'A' cnoss, VIDYAPEETA 4
THVA ..ADA.l'AN'A('}AD V
III III'! I\llll1lI\all ll'
BANGALORE-560 023
(BY sm: B.N. ANANTI-IA NARAYf\N1't.A'At)'J..)
THIS RFA IS man U/S 96«._Oi?.DER 410 RULE 1 05' etc
AGAINST THE JUDGEMEIW arm DATED .-19.09.2007
PASSED IN OS.NO.1031'5/2005 FILE OF THE 111
ADDL.CIT':' own. (3CH.Nf.).25, BANGALORE,
DECREEING '1'!-IE sun' FOR EJacT~ME-NT. _
THIS AJPPEAL O'NA"F;Q~R, VAQMISSION THIS DAY,
COURT zjmvaaan F'__' LLOWiNG:
-- ----n
!'1_£iti1.V Jntige, %gaiore City (CCH-20]. The 1'"
' hppellant'«ia'''a_'part11ership firm represented by its partner
'- ._ who is the 2"" appellant. The 3"'
one of the partners of the appellant - firm, who
0' " died an 12.10.2007 and the 4"-'1 appellant is also a partner
Vefhthe 1" appellant firm. The appellants were the
defendants in the suit and the respondent was the plaintifll
(in
IL
The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid suit for ejectment off -the
defendants from the suit schedule properties. ~ 2
court has decreed the suit in the following . “2 “V
” The suit of the plajntiffis decreed« he it p
1. The plehuhr is entitled to’:.vacent possessigh
of suit schedule pmperity more desc1i”berl<_in
the plaint schedule, hnm'ehe~~dereh&eh:e.
2. The defendaJ’rt_s”‘:p«.shei_ll the
possession of suit to the
pla’.intifi’ within she’h1eh;hhe -rfre_:_n the date of this
order ‘:0 do__so, lplamv is enuued
3. The – is entitled to rnesne
h–.
“_m__:e;¢1;e_h;”h’ges for the period from 05.11.2005
V t{§\..h of vacant possession of suit
_ ‘premises, consequent to the result of
* holrl’ir1gVA’pseparate enquiry under Order XX Rule
12 ef (:90.
it ” In the circumstances of the case, parties to
bear their own costs.
5. Draw decree accordingly. ”
W
2. When the matter is taken for
learned Counsel for the parties submit K
been amicably settled between tl1~elpaA_”V tn” ze
n 1n1n rnnrnn -ma-nnrhnn flan fan-r~n1|a n-F unitflnvnnrn’-, Ii111′?V11′;id’~md ~_
under:
The appeneemxpp end,eeeepeeeeeeaeeeezet the
‘I’I..«.-..’.-.
-I’;-. .-.- -an
.I.I}l-.1 VV 5 JIJ
no-.4 -an…-u-e
‘ r
1. fl”ne~;d’ppellants-:ieoncedfi their tenancy
in respeet:ev.efV_theI_V–s_nit property stands
The appellants
‘toe judgrnent and decree passed
“E.– ;_1__’ ;_.s._ V 7 _ 3:- n _ 1.f\f’|IE’l_f\.l’\ _ l’l’|’I__
Ll]. I1′.lI:’i;1 Coull }.J.Du NU. 1U-3.10] .n..’aUU\J- 11.13
1′
” them time 31.03.2010 to vacate and deliver
i,b.ack_ vacent””possession of the suit schedule
TA ~ to the respondent for which the
“‘1esp0edent agxeed. The appellants have agreed
mesne pmo1″1ts/’damages for use and
‘~ nan nafinn 1:
\l\J\J llfill-I\Ial£ [JI-
01.11.2005 to 29.02.2008 and they have
tendered Rs.4,20,000/- to the respondent on
this day by means of Banker’s cheque bearing
Rs nflnl- nor 1″l’I(I’l’If’ll”I ‘Fun-I-n
I PU’ “gum H”
r
Uh
‘.
‘;to pay chargesfdamages for two
No.945695 dated 20.03.2003 drawn on
3 “g OTC, 11.1 h 1:’: Clulowxcug Ti Dy uléfi
re._ng flgn h___ nnxlln 1′ av _ namrfl in
-” 1′ -‘- -‘” — -rr —– -*—‘ -o–‘-‘– — 2—.1
mesne profits] damages for nee loceuyiattilgxzll
for the period Ol.03.20fl8’««..to 3i;o3.2o1oeg’h The
appellants undertake that woulfinet iildfiet
any party t’tt’e”‘pre:11-11’ueee2 anctwouid
irnnal-n as-L 1-uni-u-I Atzmr nnfin-I3′ f’l;VJ¢”_’|’nL§’.fI’I”I rs-4′ I-I-In
V3′-IQ-ll! Q.l.I.|.l. .l-I-E.-LI.’-I ‘JV_a.l. ‘.V$’\_-I3-AI-L. |’VJvE)g|T-‘§xI.I.IJ-I ‘-31- L119
suit schedule pmpextfif to 1ee§idiitie’ht on or
before ,3:-.g3.2ojo€ . l{femmg the
Iepoxgatiettt __ execi_11t;ion__ » case. The
appeflante’— * the monthly
_ for the
e1e;o3.2%e”tetl “regularly -V—~ —nth
C B
and
A V-i__.C(3G11SC*31]1iVc lfiibfiths, the appellants shall not be
V’ ” -. iibr the time agreed under this Joint
respondent will be entitled to sue
ot1t~exeeution of the decree Without refereflce to
the”:.’-:tended time. The apmlleunte an-‘.ier+.al-{e to
AA an affidavit in the above terms within’ two
-A weeks.
The appellants and the respondent pray that
“hove appeal be disposed of in terms of .
….-1.. ………..__1_- _. – _;.I
‘ -.
3. ….e .. d and the 4!«- a'””‘ella11t ..ecr5mr f
S?
and all of them are identified’ their leariredV”AcVivoegates.
4. Learned counter roars that since
the matter heslreen Vliretreeen the parties,
the appeal of the joint memo.
It is ewidentiipiltiietl been er},-11…. …y wth
the p9.rti_-s and their mefltirse “””*”ed nu ouates.
learned Counsel for the parties, I am
the compromise entered into between the
Accordingly. the appeal is disposed of in
V -V terms aforesaid joint memo. No costs. Draw the
K V’ ‘ A decree aecordingly.
2:’
‘art “ii the respondent’ issflso present before ,
6. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. However,
the appellants] defendants are granted time till V V.
to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the schedtfle it
_ property to the respondent] plaintiff msubjeot it V
and conditions mentioned in the joint
7. Registry is of the .*o””‘t “or:
paid along with the ‘Appeal to the
appellant as piovicled the Karnataka
Court Fees ‘Act,’