Venkatarama vs K. Sangeetha Giridhar

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The parties have settled the matter under the aegis of Bangalore Mediation Centre. The memorandum of settlement u/s 89 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005 reads as follows:

"The parties above named beg to submit as follows:

I. The aforesaid appeal was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. During the course of mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:

The appellant is represented by the General Power of Attorney holder his wife Smt. Yeshoda. The respondent accept the same. The General Power of Attorney in original is enclosed to this settlement.

The respondent filed a original Suit in O.S. No. 3828 of 2002, on the file of Bangalore City Civil Court, against the appellant, for relief of declaration and possession of the property measuring 300 sq. ft., situated on the eastern side property bearing Municipal No. 15/2, 2nd Main, Puttaiyanapalya, Jayanagar, Bangalore. The said suit came to be decreed by the Bangalore City Civil Court on 29-10-2013, thereby directing the appellant herein to demolish and deliver vacant possession of the aforesaid property which is more fully described in the Schedule "B" to the plaint.

The appellant who was the defendant in the Trial Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29-10-2013, passed in O.S. No. 3828 of 2002, preferred the above appeal.

At the time of admission of the appeal at the request of the parties the matter in dispute came to be referred to the Mediation center, to resolve the dispute between the parties.

At the intervention of the mediator, with the active co-operation of Advocates for parties and the parties, the subject-matter of the suit has been amicably settled between the parties and the terms of the settlement are reduced into writing.

The appellant admits and concedes that, the respondent alone is the absolute owner of the plaint B schedule property. As a consideration of this compromise the respondent has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,50,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the appellant who has agreed to deliver vacant possession of the B schedule property to the respondent on or before three months from the date of recording the settlement before the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka. The agreed sum of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) payable by the respondent to the appellant in the following manner:

(i) A sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) by way of bank demand draft drawn in the name of the General Power of Attorney holder of the appellant-Smt. Yeshoda on the hearing date i.e. 3-4-2014 before the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka.

(ii) Balance sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by the respondent to the appellant by way of demand draft/cash at the time of the appellant handing over possession of the plaint B schedule property (i.e. by handing over the key of the B schedule property on vacating the same) to the respondent on or before three months, as agreed above, before the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, in the above case.

Inspite of the above settlement if the appellant fails to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the plaint B schedule property, to the respondent on or before three months from the date of recording of the settlement, then the respondent shall be entitled to sue the decree for possession by filing the execution case in the Trial Court, as if there is no settlement in the matter.

Both the parties submit that the above case would be kept pending for accomplishing this settlement by making mutual submissions accordingly.

II. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Hon''ble High Court may be pleased to pass necessary orders and dispose off the above appeal in terms of this agreement.

III. In view of the aforesaid agreement, the parties prays for refund of the full Court fee paid.

IV. Parties will appear on 3-4-2014 before the Hon''ble High Court for passing orders in terms of the agreement".

Pursuant to the settlement, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, the learned Counsel for the respondent hands over the Demand Draft, dated 3-4-2014 bearing No. 842063673 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn in favour of Smt. Yashoda (the appellant''s power of attorney holder) to Sri Vinod Reddy, the learned Counsel appearing for Sri G. Papi Reddy for the appellant.

Sri Vinod Reddy receives the Demand Draft and acknowledges the receipt of the same,

Accepting and recording the memorandum of settlement, this appeal is disposed of in terms thereof. The office is directed to refund the entire Court fee to the appellant''s side.

At this juncture, Sri C.M. Nagabushan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the liberty be reserved to the parties to move this Court for the posting of the disposed off matter for ascertaining the compliance by the parties with the terms of the settlement deed, dated 27-3-2014. The sought liberty sought is reserved. If the parties do not move the Court for the posting of the matter before 3-7-2014, the office is directed to list the matter on 4-7-2014.