In this regular second appeal regarding a suit for permanent injunction, the High Court observed that the underlying property dispute had already been concluded through partition and execution. Consequently, the Court held that nothing survived for consideration and dismissed the appeal as infructuous.
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 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
R.S.A.NO.296 OF 2015 (P/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O ANNI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT VENKAPPA MAISTRY COMPOUND NANTOOR PADAVU KULSHEKAR POST MANGALORE - 571 241.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA R.P FOR SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
NO.1 IS THE WIDOW AND NOS.2 TO 5 ARE CHILDREN OF NARAYANA, ALL ARE R/A C/O BOOBA DEVADIGA BOLLJE TUTHU POST VENOOR
2
BELTHANGADY TALUK - 571 240.
(BY SRI. K. ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.11.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 108/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:06.07.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.658/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIOAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) MANGALORE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Present regular second appeal is filed by the
appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered in O.S.No.658/1999 dated 06.07.2005 on the
file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mangalore and in R.A.No.108/2008 dated 13.11.2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, in and by which, suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff were dismissed.
3
Anandarama, learned counsel for the respondents.
respondents/defendants submits that even prior to filing of the aforesaid suit the respondents/defendants had initiated a suit for partition in which the appellant/plaintiff here was also a party. That the said suit was decreed and same has been confirmed in R.A.No.12/2011 as well as in RSA No.1532/2016. Final Decree Proceedings in FDP No.38/2016 was initiated, Commissioner report is filed, property has been divided and parties have been allotted their respective shares and execution is completed.
respondents/defendants files a memo dated 22.02.2022 along with a copy of the judgment passed in RSA No.1532/2016, proceedings in FDP No.38/2016,
4
Commissioner's report and order sheet in execution petition No.11/2020. Same is taken on record.
does not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In the aforesaid circumstances, nothing survives for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as same having become
infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
RU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present regular second appeal survives after establishment of final partition and execution of shares.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hemavathi W/o Anni Devadiga
Smt. Saraswathi
Harisha
Shivarama
Dinesha
Chandrasa
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
