Appeal filed against a civil judgment seeking execution of a sale deed was dismissed as withdrawn, as the appellant filed a memo no longer pressing the appeal.
None granted; appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
R.F.A.No.312/2014(SP)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. ARUN KUMAR S/O R.MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O ITTAMADU RAMAIAH R/AT: RAMA NILAYA NO.1, AREHALLI VILLAGE ITTAMADU MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 061.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.K.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
K. SHANTHARAJU SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
2
3
SINCE THE RESPONDENT NOS. 7(B) AND 7(C) ARE MINOR REPRESENTED
BY THEIR MOTHER AS A NATURAL GUARDIAN
RESPONDENT NO.7(A) I.E., SMT. MANJULA
RESPONDENT NOS. 7(A) TO 7(C) ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.5 GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 029.
LRS OF RESPONDENT NOS.5,6 AND RESPONDENT NO.8 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO.5
4
GURAPPANAPALYA MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SURESH DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8 SRI. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2013 IN O.S.NO.25091/2009 PASSED BY THE LEAERNED XXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-29, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED BY AWARDING COST PROPORTIONATELY.
THIS RFA COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Police Inspector of Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru has submitted a report dated 26.08.2021 before the Court for having executed the Bailable Warrant in respect of Respondent No.1 Smt.Vinoda Kumari and Respondent No.4 - Sri. A.S. Sourav Sandesh. The police report is placed on record.
5
address other than the address shown in the cause title of the appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo
seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed. The Memo is taken on record and appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
AS/VN
Sri. M. Arun Kumar S/o R. Muniraju
Smt. B. K. Vinoda Kumari
Smt. Abhinetri. A. S.
Smt. Sanjana. A. S
Sri. A. S. Saurav Sandesh
Smt. Sarojamma
S. Sujatha
Ravi V. Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
