And:
3. Rajagnpai,
Aged about 4? years, V b
8/0. HR. Sharnana,
Residing near Dharnlaraja Ten1p1e~.,_
Meiekote, '
Hesakote Tewn,
Bangalore Rura1Dis:rict. .
" e..Rjespondent
{By Sri. C. Shankar Re:ie}y,_ ./%:_<iVegeeLfe}_'»..e _
This Rl_*[::'i3._fi1e;d against the judgment
and decree (;?ate§f,V:»e' 12403/2'(')0'7 'p,aS5=eci------ivn O.S.N0.4572/2002
on the fi1e'"of VC-i'ty~«V_C'iy.i.1 and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore §:uit§f__(¢;CH¥3},_VCieC1je'eing the suit for possession.
* onwvfor Hearing, this day,
N.K. Pati-l'J deiizfefedéthe' following:
§nDGMENT
V _ 'aéjpeal arises out of the judgment and decree
Eefigd :2§efiemch 2007 pas&aiin.ClS.P&L4572/2002,
by' §n'e«;_ Add}. City Civii and Sessions Judge,
V':fnBengafiwe(fity(CC}L3L
2. When this matter had come up for hearing on
V' V 12"1 July, 2011, we heard the learnefi eeuneei appearing
/
2'
V
hm)
fer the parties for quite same time. Durizzg the_ ef
submission, they submitted that some "
granted to enable them :0 exgzlere t§ie""pe'eeibi1iey pf
amieabie eettlement and to reyert *€'he'TVsame; _ 'E'1jie§fef5i'e,
the matter was adjounleei. thaif
day, the matter was djreeted---'ee"L':be'-zje-1ieied..0nviiI431 July
2011, at the requestaa appearing
for both the 'paiitiee, settlement.
3. is taken up, learned
eefieiiéints, Sri; I-"LS. Satish
Kumagg appearing for respondent,
Sri.C._ Shéihlger _F:ecidy9,” }1ave filed a joint memo dated
&.:fly’v~- signed by the appellants and
their respective ceunselg stating that
tifieel eppea} may be disposed of, in terms and
eendiiiefzs of the gain: memo dated 1431 July 2831.
‘ H The said jeini meme reads thus:
e/we
E; MWMNWWMW.»
ix
4
“The parties to the appeal submit as £0i1exve’:T”»e.
1. At the intervention of the well ud:3h’ers:Ae:VQ’;f”
the parties, the parties teettethe a;3pea§:e’_’heive”.V ‘4
agreed to settle the dispute…e::1{eah1y’—-.
accordingly this meme is
2. The parties have V_a§§tee&.._. theLt”‘t.he_eu.it
schedule propettj;_ 1e.”‘~the subject
matter of the appezflflVie’.’W<§rth..iRe.;_45.;00,000/-
(Rupeee fifve }e§1l?J1e.}3ii_i},f].
3. The agreed and
ti.) p’ay~~”‘ the sum of
Fifteen lakhs only)
te’ or before 30/05/2012,
towvafdse 1’/3rd eheire of appellants in the suit
” eehedule ‘pr’epe-rty.
:’fvhe’V~T.:§ei;”$pe11ants declare that on receipt of
the sum of Rs.15,0C9,000/~ being their
“E__/_AABFd share in the suit schedule property,
they do net have any eiaim er share ever any
portien of the suit schedule preperty,
5. The appellants undertake to vacate and
hand ever the vacant physical p0ssessio_n.§3f_’ll’-._
the suit schedule property which
subject matter of the appeal by ej(ie”:ingiVl_lall’
the tenants in the seher:iiile’«prQ;pe:rt:j;f’v
further undertake to clearl;’_’_efilV tlhel” entire_l”~~_l”-l.A
security deposit amemzigs taken fr0:;r’eaehVV0f.3
the tenants on or beforeV..S()/O5/i2~O’li2:lsuléjeet
to responderitxp paying snip of
Rs. 1 5, O0, 000 / ~ lalchs only).
6. The re}3pen_Cl’enli_ that he Wm
not lviolate the 4a;ffit)v’re’s*aird ‘terms and in case
pf Rs, l5,00,000/-
fgupeesll F’l1″t.een4 °L_aFhs’only) as stated above
tlrew.p4’appel1antfs.. at liberty to be in
v –pessess.iQn ‘bf suit schedule property till
ll the entirellafridiint is paid;
“li’*l’1e’ifappellants undertake that they will
nbi vielate the aforesaid terms and in case
default in delivery of poseession of the
V suit schedule property as stated abcrve, the
A respendent is at liberty to execute the deeree
ferthwith, /
6
8. The respondent is entitled to eofleet
are
rents from the respective tenantele-.’_j , A’
number) from 01/08/2011 till the
portions are Vacated ar:d~»thef_ap};je}lar1ts._fA.
undertake to issue atternrn’en.t’ netirees
each 0f the tenants ind.i_eatin’g_ the safznej,
9. The appellants unci’erta1§e’-~r.not at0″‘int:{:uet
any other tenantsrthtinte pf the suit
schedule property} without
written” ee’fnsent:3–frc2n1″Athe
10,». 1’1axz=e’§ no objection for
:transfer»”‘:;f-.the”e]:e’e–tricity and water meters
transferred :a}:he«.na:he of the respondent.
TheV”‘ap-peilants undertake to clear all
_V the.n’«<;iAi1e_s towards water and electricity
.een'su1n_'p=tion charges which are payable ts
A the zjeneerned departments.
AA The appellants esnfirrn that they have
‘A not ereated any sort sf encumbrances over
the suit schedule preperty and
» .m..,_,..-.-M- . .,,,.,,.,.»…….,,:».
aforesaid joint memo, the appeal stands c:iispCsse_d__of and
the impugned decree stands modified aec0rdi:’igEj§§’L:’~_:.”»
Registry is directed to refund the e0=;::1:*t
the appellant on the appeal memo–,~as”pee.”SeC_€ien-7é3zi”of b T.
the Court Fees and Valuation
– Xe
Eeeee
i