This second regular appeal was dismissed for lack of a substantial question of law because the related civil suit appeal is pending. The lower court's decree for permanent injunction was confirmed.
The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court were confirmed.
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 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1136 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
ALL RESIDING AT YERRALAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDA TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 209.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIVEK N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TOS R4)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.02.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.189/2007 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.08.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.158/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC., GUDIBANDA.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The second regular appeal is by the
appellants/defendants aggrieved by the concurrent findings and conclusions rendered in the judgment and decree dated 31/08/2007 passed in OS.No.158/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gudibanda (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and judgment and decree dated 13/02/2014 passed in RA.No.189/2007 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkaballapura (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court').
4
5
for the defendants submitted that in the meanwhile, the defendants herein had filed suit in OS.No.223/2008 seeking comprehensive reliefs of declaration and injunction against the plaintiffs herein. The said suit was dismissed on 20/07/2016. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants who are the plaintiffs therein had preferred the regular appeal in RA.No.166/2016. The said regular appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30/01/2020. That the defendants herein have filed miscellaneous petition in Mis.No.7/2020 seeking restoration of the said regular appeal and the said matter is pending consideration.
5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the matter and taking into consideration of the nature of relief sought in the said suit in respect of which
6
Miscellaneous Petition is pending consideration, no substantial question of law arise in this matter for consideration. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court and the first appellate court are confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Mkm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a substantive question of law arises in an appeal concerning permanent injunction in a partition suit pending a related appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narasimhappa
Narasimha Reddy
Pedda Manju
Chinna Manju
Rathnamma
Narasimhappa
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
