AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These two miscellaneous first appeals are by plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 in O.S. No.549/2013 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. Admittedly, the said suit is for the relief of declaration of title with reference to suit schedule properties comprising of lands bearing Sy. No.192 measuring 02 Acres 12 guntas and Sy. No.193 measuring 01 Acre 28 guntas (totally measuring 4 Acres) situate at Kannurahalli village, kasaba hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. In the said suit, the other reliefs, which are sought are, for declaration that the sale deed dated 16.06.2012 and general power of attorney dated 11.06.2012, both compositely registered as one document, executed by plaintiffs in favour of the defendant to be declared as null and void and for permanent injunction against the defendant with reference to the suit schedule properties and other consequential reliefs.
In the said suit, application in I.A. No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed by plaintiffs seeking ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating and changing the nature of the property, which was allowed on 22.03.2014 restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. Meanwhile, I.A. No.3 is filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC., seeking vacating of the interim order granted on 22.03.2014. The trial Court by order dated 06.01.2015, declined to continue the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs and accordingly, dismissed I.A. No.1 filed by them while allowing I.A. No.3 filed by the defendant and consequently, vacating the interim order granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
MFA No.456/2016 is filed by plaintiffs challenging the order of the trial Court dated 06.01.2016, wherein I.A.No.1 filed by plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. is dismissed. MFA No.457/2016 is filed challenging the very same order dated 06.01.2016, wherein I.A. No.3 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC., for vacating the interim order is allowed.
When these two appeals were pending consideration, joint memo was filed on 29.04.2016 indicating that the defendant has paid Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs) in the first instance and subsequently, paid Rs.1,90,00,000/- (Rupees one crore ninety lakhs). With this, the entire amount for settlement i.e., Rs.2,30,00,000/- (Rupees two crores thirty lakhs) is paid by the defendant (common respondent herein) and received by the plaintiffs in the original suit (common appellants herein). The said payment is made in this proceedings.
In the joint memo, parties have agreed to file a comprehensive compromise petition, where the rights of the plaintiffs in the suit - appellants herein are extinguished in the suit schedule property and sale deed dated 16.06.2012 executed in favour of the defendant is confirmed from the date when the sale deed is executed and while doing so, the liabilities of plaintiffs with reference to any transaction that has taken place with reference to the suit schedule land from 16.06.2012 is not binding on the plaintiffs and any requirement either for survey / measurement of the land fixing hadbast to the land and also to pursue the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Authority for seeking compensation with reference to a portion of the aforesaid land being acquired by National Highway Authority of India for expansion of Bangalore Chennai Super Express Highway and also to seek conversion, if necessary without reference to the schedule in the sale deed or in the general power of attorney independently to get conversion of the remaining land.
As stated supra, pursuant to joint memo filed on 29.4.2016 the present compromise petition which is numbered as IA.I/2017 is filed by the parties this day. The appellants - plaintiffs and respondent - defendant, who are also present before this Court would admit and accept that they have gone through the contents of the compromise petition which is read over to them by their respective counsel and understood the same and besides that they have also read the same by themselves. They would request this court to dispose off these appeals in terms of the compromise petition.
The appellants herein, plaintiffs in the court below further submit that they would withdraw the suit in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in this proceedings and the court below may dispose off the suit in O.S.No.549/2013 as settled out of court and pass decree in holding that the defendant in the court below is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and the plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest over the same. They also agree that the defendant in the court below is at liberty to receive the compensation amount that they are entitled to receive from the National Highway Authority in respect of a portion of suit schedule land, which is acquired for widening of the Bangalore Chennai Super Express Highway and that she is entitled to participate in all the proceedings in that behalf as the absolute owner of said property.
The appellants further submit that with reference to some discrepancy in referring the suit schedule property as converted land is concerned, it is open for the defendant to seek conversion in accordance with law if conversion procedure is already not completed. In that behalf, it is made clear by this court that the competent authority shall receive necessary applications, relevant documents and also the fee for conversion from the defendant in the original suit as if she is the absolute owner of the property right from the date of sale deed of suit property being executed in her favour. If any technical hitch is there with reference to conversion is concerned, the same shall be referred to this Court in this disposed off matter to seek further clarification by the Government through Government Advocate instead of harassing the parties for grant of such relief. Since this Court has prima facie decided the title of parties, the ownership of land in question shall not be a subject matter of dispute before any authority at the instance of plaintiffs or anybody claiming under them. It is also made clear that the parties to this proceedings are also at liberty to move this court for a direction in these disposed off matters, if the concerned authorities raise any technical issues with reference to grant of conversion order by including the said Government Department as a necessary party.
With the aforesaid observations, the dispute between the parties is resolved in terms of the compromise petition, which is taken on record along with the submission of parties to this proceedings that they have gone through the contents of compromise petition and understood the same. Accordingly, these two miscellaneous first appeals are disposed off. While doing so, as stated supra, the trial court is directed to dispose off the suit in dismissing the claim of plaintiffs for title to the said property, consequently accepting the title of defendant over the suit schedule property and also recording that the plaintiffs in the said suit have received the entire sale consideration from defendant for sale of the suit schedule property. If any excess amount is received, which is over and above the consideration shown in the sale deed, the same would be the money paid by and between the defendant and plaintiffs for settlement of the suit in addition to the sale consideration shown in the sale deed which is already received.
All the parties to this proceedings are directed to affix their signature to the order sheet maintained in these proceedings which shall be identified by their respective counsel.