".{By SRIQRAGHUNATH, ADV FOR
E 'TfiE JUDGEMENT & DEGREE 000 10.6.08 passao IN
*.R.A.NO 50/07 on THE FILE 0? THE CIVIL JUDGE,
..}..
IN wag HIGH COURT op KARNATAKA AT sAN§gi00§.0;
marge THIS THE 10*" any 0? MARCH--2§O9i:fi 'c
BEFORE »""- NH" '
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcEéA§s;0o?AgN§ ;'3.'"
R.s.A.No;é252/2000i . N
BETWEEN .
1 SHRI K SHIVAKUMAR'_._ ,.
3/o. LATE KARI GoHoA0»?;
AGED ABOUT_49 YEARSa
M/S. GURU WINES j _4».._ z
T V S RCAQg; '. 3*' '_'-*-W»
KoLLg0AL_TawH "g,_V, ="»g H»
cHAMAgA0AmAGAR»p:sTR10T 571440.
'* "'+ ' "~. 1»... APPELLANT
(By ski B'N§sHE%i¥. AS? )."W
AND:
13w:M0M$mAmm
J'S/Q. LATE PEER*SAHEB
. " AGED Aaour 74 YEARS
'*,R/AT.N0;97, JAKKASANDRA BLOCK
.g KQRAMANGALA
'wEANGRLOKE 560050.
.. ":' ... RESFONDENT
n »_M/3': LEGAL AXIS , ADVs)
THIS RSA IS ETLED 0/5. 100 or CPC AGAINST
(SR.DN}, & JMFC., KOLLEGRLA, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL END CIONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DEGREE
-2-
urn 7.9.37 passes IN os 81/04' on THE"§IiE C?
THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), Ann LgMfc,,a
KOLLEGRL.
?HIS A??EAL COMING onft?ea"~ADMIss:oN,dTH;a]
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FQLLow1NG:'*_
The appellant herein" ds_ tne" defendant in
OS.No.81/2004. The tespendent nérein ehe is the
plaintiff in the 5a;at_s¢:g aagfdégstituted. the
suit for po$5e$$ionfanqaaamaeeegwfhe relationship
between Patttée in néfilin fiiépate inasmuch as the
defendant=tagtne tenant ander the plaintiff. The
trial d,C§hxtde%flfté?V:nfiensidering the rival
contentiefie hae;_bg:'its judgment dated ?.9.2007
s, de¢reed° the "suit. in so far as the Vacant
deVpesseseion to be handed over by the defendant to
dine piaifigifff In so far as the damages it has
beefi*heid*that the plaintiff would be entitled to
dd*drecever" the sum of Rs.85G/- per month from
°.d1;1,gC04 till delivery of the suit property from
Vd"~Htne defendant. The defendant was before the
J
..3..
lower appellate Court in RA.No.50/2007 assalling
the judgment and decree passed by tthé"5tt:a;fx
Court. The appeal in RA.No,§O/200?"ceme to be "
dismissed by judgment dated.1'o--.'6';2VQQa;,tT
Therefore. the defendant. in lthe* saidV salt: is lfl
before this Court in this 'appeal. adaifigt the
concurrent judgmente_ rehderedj"by thel Courts
below.
2. In" the ~oehdlao"<apfieel,Tthe parties have
filed a .... '=.:da_teld'"*ZL8v;'§3.2009. The joint
memo reads as héreunder?w"
*2fG;iNT MEMO
. The ~parties herein mutually agree
"*that if one year time is granted to the
d*appellaht=he would voluntarily surrender
laVaoeh$_'@ossession of the premises in
"~..__questie'n with the admitted rate @
Rs,850/~ pm till the appellant vacates.
The parties therefore pray that
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss
the appeal granting time upto 31.3.2010
to the-appellant to vacate the property
J
in question, in the interest of justieejghe_<
and equity."
3. Considering that the a@pellahtthereihohas7h
now sought to withdraw the appeai.sUbjeet to the
respondent having agreed to gtaat ofie year time,
the joint memo is a part of
this appeal ahd acgotdieeli,” the iappeal is
disposed of as yfltherawhf fi§Q§§e: recording the
undertaking %Y the apeeilaht that he would vacate
and head “oaéeu Egg flvacantiwfiossession of suit
schedule premises ta the tespondent on or before
31.3.2010 and until thee the appellant would pay
.*afi SUE aof ‘Rs.85Uf~ ,per’ month without default to
tthehrespondeet__ The arrears as directed by the
trial-.,’CVouar’t._fzshall also be paid subject te
accoufiting between the parties. It is made clear
uihiithat, in ‘the event of there being default in
igfiyfiéfitiaf the rent, the time even though agreed
h:te- by the respondent herein would not be
uh”~a?ailable to the appellant ends the respondent
};
V
-5-
would be entitled to execute the decree fefitheith
immediately on such default being committed,.jet”u
4. In terms of the above, the epeeel etendee
disposed of as withdrawn. -.
Iudqe