Dismissed

Sri Madhusudhan Reddy v. Muniyamma

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023RFA/1139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru disposed of Regular First Appeal No. 1139 of 2020 regarding an injunction suit. The court allowed an interim application for withdrawal under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC after the appellant accepted a settlement sum from respondents. The final appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, and documents were directed to be handed over to a GPA holder.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn upon approval of the application to withdraw under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC following full and final settlement.

Sri Madhusudhan Reddy Vs Muniyamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41449 RFA No. 1139 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2020 (INJ)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY S/O LATE VENKATARAMAI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.70, S.G. PALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560093

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MUNIYAMMA

¶12

SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S WHO ARE RESPONDENTS NOS.2 TO 6

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

D.Y.SRINIVAS S/O LATE YERRAPPA,

¶15

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶16

D.Y.GANESHAPPA S/O LATE YERRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶17

D. Y. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE YERRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶18

D.Y.NAGARAJ S/O LATE YERRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶19

D.Y.NARAYANASWAMY

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41449 RFA No. 1139 of 2020

¶21

S/O LATE YERRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶22

ALL ARE R/AT VIGNESHWARA NILAYA, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, GOKULA LAYOUT, DEVASANDRA, K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560036

¶23

SUBHAN SAB SINCE DEAD

¶24

K.N.NAGARAJU S/O LATE B.K.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶25

BALARAJU S/O SRI A JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶26

ALL ARE R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560043

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI G.V.SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6 R2 TO R6 ARE LRS OF R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 APPEAL AGAINST R8 & R9 DISMISSED, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023)

¶29

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 AND ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.08.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.15835/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALUR (CCH-22) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41449 RFA No. 1139 of 2020

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.08.2020 passed in O.S.No.15835/2006 by the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo hall unit, Bengaluru whereby the said suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction and other relief in relation to the suit schedule immovable property was dismissed by the Trial Court.

¶34

Memo filed on behalf of the appellants to treat the respondent Nos.2 to 6 are the only legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 is placed on record is accepted. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are treated as the only legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 which reads as follows:

¶35

“ The appellant submits that the respondent No.7/defendant No.7, Subhan Sab expired during the pendency of the O.S.No.15835/2006, and due to lack of knowledge the death of the respondent No.7/defendant No.7, is not reported before the Trial Court. Since suit is for permanent injunction, LR's of respondent No.7 is not required and cause of action does not arise against the LR's of respondent No.7. The appeal against the respondent No.8 and 9 may kindly be dismissed as not pressed, in the interest of justice and equity ”

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:41449 RFA No. 1139 of 2020

¶38

“ The undersigned herewith submits that the respondent No.1 passed away on 28.07.2020.

¶39

Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are her legal representatives and they are on record. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 may be treated as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 in this case “.

¶40

The appellant has filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 seeking dismissal of the appeal as against the respondents. In the affidavit filed in support of the application it is stated that the parties are amicably settled dispute among themselves and as such the appellant does not intend to prosecute the appeal as against the respondents and intend to abandon the same and withdraw the appeal. The appellant also acknowledges the receipt of Rs.70,00,000/- by way of demand draft from the respondents towards full and final settlement of his claim over the suit schedule property as stated in the affidavit. The said application is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶41

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and accepting the reasons stated in the application and accompanying affidavit, I.A.No.1/2023 is allowed.

¶42

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶43

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41449 RFA No. 1139 of 2020

¶44

The Registry of the Trial Court is directed to hand over all the documents produced by the appellant/plaintiff to Sri.D.S.Venkateshmurthy who is the GPA holder of the respondents forthwith without any delay immediately upon receipt of the copy of this order.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8.5

Sri Madhusudhan Reddy v. Muniyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhusudhan Reddy v. Muniyamma

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

Mr Mohammed Haneef @ Illyaz Vs Sri G M Malik

Ms. Hitha Dhananjay Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Vs Sri. G Prem Kumar

Rajalakshmamma Vs D L Jagadeesh

Sri. Nandan, Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri K N Ravishankar Vs Smt Roopa K N