SRINIVAS Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for appellant has filed a memo dtd. 31/10/2022 for withdrawal of appeal stating that appellant was plaintiff before trial Court and he was agreement holder in respect of property bearing Sy.no.21/P29 measuring one acre situated at Yerappanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. It was stated that agreement of sale was executed on 13/10/2010 and there was registered GPA executed on same day. It was further stated that though trial Court had dismissed suit without considering agreement of sale and GPA, during pendency of appeal, parties had entered into compromise, wherein, registered consent deed was executed on 14/9/2022 and in view of above, appeal would not survive for consideration.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondents however, would submit that land in question was a granted land and respondents belong to schedule caste and therefore, alienation or transfer would attract provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer Certain Lands) Act, 1978. He would further submit that he has no instructions about any settlement between parties.

(3.) Since appellant wants to withdraw appeal whether any actions of parties would attract provisions under any enactment need not be adjudicated at this stage, especially as no liberty is reserved to appellant.