The High Court of Karnataka held that since the underlying suit was rejected by the Trial Court, the Miscellaneous First Appeal became infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without detailed consideration of the merits.
The appeal was dismissed as infructuous; pending applications stood disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7541 OF 2017 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA
ALL ARE R/A CHIKKATHOGURU VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560077.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAIK N R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
S/O SRI S N SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS R/A NO.200, 10TH C MAIN ROAD 1ST FLOOR, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011.
R5(a) & R5(b) ARE R/A NO.6/10 SANTHANUTHALAPADU POST PRAKSHAM DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH-600001.
9(b) MASTER TANMAY S/O LATE D VENAKTESH AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT HEMA VENKATESH @ HEMA ANKALGI R9(a) & R9(b) ARE R/A NO.2942 14TH CROSS, B S K 2ND STAGE K R ROAD, BENGALURU-560070.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4: NOTICE IS NOT ORDER TO OTHER RESPONDENTS)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:11.09.2017 PASSED ON I.A. IN O.S.NO.1339/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A. FILED U/O 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 28.11.2023 stating that the suit itself has
been rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the present appeal does not survive for consideration and same
may be dismissed as having become infructuous.
The memo is placed on record.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.
All pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal survives for consideration when the underlying suit has been rejected by the Trial Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT. AMMAYAMMA
GOWRAMMA
RAVIKUMAR
SRINIVASA MURTHY
RAJENDRA
MANJULA
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
