Dismissed

Sri.H.S. Sathyanarayana v. Smt. H.S. Nandini @ H. Suma

Karnataka HC31 May 2023RFA/235/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a regular first appeal filed by the legal representatives of the appellants because a subsequent memo established that the matter had been settled out of court, making the appeal not pressed. An incidental application was also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as not pressed; the incidental application was disposed of.

Sri.H.S. Sathyanarayana Vs Smt. H.S. Nandini @ H. Suma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 235 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2015 (PAR/POS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.H.S. SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE H SRINIVASA MURTHY, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S AMENDED AS PER ORDER 08.04.2021.

¶9

1(a)SMT. H.S. LALITHA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS W/O LATE SRI. H.S.SATHYANARAYANA.

¶10

1(b) SRI. H.S.KRISHNA S/O H. SATHYANARAYAN RAO AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

¶11

Digitally signed 1(c) SRI.H.S. RAJA by DHANALAKSHMI S/O H.S. SATHYANARAYANA RAO MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. Location: High Court of Karnataka ALL ARE R/AT NO.381/9 (OLD) NO.9, (NEW), 11TH CROSS SWIMMING EXTENSION MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-03.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. C R SUBRAMANYA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

RFA No. 235 of 2015

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. H.S. NANDINI @ H. SUMA D/O SRI. H.S.SATHYNARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.87/1, NANJAPPA LAYOUT VIDHYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE-560097.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. R.G.BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION. 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE (1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:30.10.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.2007/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREED THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 19.02.2022 which is signed by the legal representatives of appellant No.1 stating that the matter has been settled out of Court. Hence, the above appeal may be dismissed as not pressed.

¶24

Memo is taken on record.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not

¶26

pressed.

¶27

¶28

RFA No. 235 of 2015

¶29

In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2015

¶30

does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is also

disposed of.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri.H.S. Sathyanarayana v. Smt. H.S. Nandini @ H. Suma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.H.S. Sathyanarayana v. Smt. H.S. Nandini @ H. Suma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof Amit Kumar C Jain Vs Mandakini Hospital

Kodandaramaiah Vs Keshava Murthy

Sri Sathyanarayana Setty S/O Late Srinivasa Setty Vs Smt D Jayamma W/O R a S Raju

Sri Viduthalali Veeran Vs Sri Abdul Rawoof

Sri Kaiser Pasha Vs Sri Sarvar Khan

M/S Mangalam Granites Vs Sri. S. P. Mahendran