Dismissed

Venugopal v. Srinivasa D N

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2022RFA/138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This letter of appeal filed under Section 96 CPC is dismissed. The High Court, noting the appellant's apprehension regarding excluded properties, reserved the appellant's right to file a separate suit for such properties and did not allow the current appeal.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal stands dismissed. The appellant is reserved the right to file a separate suit in respect of properties which were not included in the plaint schedule.

Venugopal Vs Srinivasa D N — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶6

R.F.A.No.138/2017(PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS SON OF LATE H NARASIMHAIAH R/AT NEW NO.1/1 OLD NO 54, 1^ST CROSS KALAPPA BLOCK, RAMACHANDRAPURA, BANGALORE - 560021

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAHUL .P, FOR SRI PAPEGOWDA.B AND SRI GUNASHEKAR.M, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . SRINIVASA D N

¶13

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SON OF LATE H NARASIMAIAH R/AT NO. OLD NO.54/1, NEW NO.1/1, KALAPPA BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, RAMACHANDRAPURA BANGALORE - 560021

¶14

2 . SRI SUBBARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE H NARASIMHAIAH

¶15

¶16

3 . NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS S/O LATE H NARASIMHAIAH

¶17

4 . VENKATESH

¶18

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE H NARASIMHAIAH RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDENTS OF OPP : GANGAMMANAGUDI OLD POST OFFICE ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN - 562 101

¶19

5 . VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O D KRISHNAPPA D/O LATE H NARASIMHAIAH R/AT VIDYARANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE (R)- 561 203

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K.T.VASUDEVA IYENGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI BALARAJU.S, ADVOCATE FOR R5-ABSENT; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2018, R2 IS DELETED; VIDE ORDER DATED 07.02.2022, R4 IS DELETED)

¶22

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7305/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Memo is filed by the counsel for first respondent.

¶27

Memo reads as under:

¶28

"It is most respectfully submitted that this respondent has no claims whatsoever on other property/properties at Chikkaballapur, acquired by his father, except the appeal schedule property. Hence, submitted for orders in this regard, in the interest of justice."

¶29

The apprehension of the appellant in assailing the impugned Judgment and decree was that he was denied the right in respect of the property which was not included in the suit filed by the plaintiff and therefore he lost valuable right insofar as the property not included in the suit before trial court.

¶30

¶31

In view of the memo, reserving the right of the appellant to file a separate suit in respect of properties which were not included in the plaint schedule, the

¶32

present appeal stands dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

SBN

Venugopal v. Srinivasa D N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venugopal v. Srinivasa D N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Techsine Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bunty K Mehta

Mr Narayanappa Vs Mr M Somashekar

Kum.R.Ruchika Vs Sri.T.Thimme Gowda

Sri. Renukappa Vs Smt. Sarvamangala

Mr. Nooruddin Vs Mrs. Talath Ismail

Sri Mohammed Afroz Vs Sri Basheer Khan