Dismissed

Smt. Bhagyamma v. Murthy K. R.

Karnataka HC3 Jan 2023RFA/998/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC against a dismissal of a suit for partition, the appellant moved to withdraw the appeal. The High Court granted leave for withdrawal and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, disposing of pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the appeal; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Smt. Bhagyamma Vs Murthy K. R. — Partition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

RFA No. 998/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2021 (PAR/DEC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT PADHMA D/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶14

SMT GIRIJAMMA D/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHODENAPURA VILLAGE KODIPALYA DAKALE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK

¶16

BENGALURU-560 060 …APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SHRI. K.P. JAYASIMHA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

MURTHY K. R. S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

RAMACHANDRAPPA K.R S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶21

¶22

RFA No. 998/2021

¶23

NAGESH K.R S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶24

SL.NO 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT CHODENAPURA VILLAGE KODIPALYA DAKALE KENGERI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 060

¶25

SURESH BABU S/O LATE B. SHANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A NO.98, 29^TH CROSS 2^ND STAGE, BANASHANKARI BANGALORE-560 070

¶26

ABM BUILDTECH PVT LTD 12/A2, ABM TOWER 24^TH MAIN ROAD, 14TH CROSS J P NAGAR, 1^ST PHASE BANGALORE-560 078 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. P.S. MOHAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS …RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SHRI. H.S. SOMNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶28

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2016 PASSED IN O.S.NO.5708/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE LIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶29

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RFA No. 998/2021

JUDGMENT

Shri K.P. Jayasimha, learned advocate for the appellants has filed a memo dated 12.12.2022 seeking leave to withdraw the appeal.

¶34

Leave granted. Appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶35

In view of disposal of the appeal, all pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of .

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt. Bhagyamma v. Murthy K. R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagyamma v. Murthy K. R.

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

Sri N Y Srinivasa Vs Sri N C Venkatesh

Sri K M Appaiah Vs Mrs C P Poovaiah

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd.

Sri D v Narasimhan Vs M/S N.S.Rajagopal and Co.

The Commissioner Vs Avestagenome Project