Dismissed

Ramanna Shetty (Since Deceased) v. Vanaja Shedthi

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024RFA/709/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This regular first appeal against a preliminary decree in a partition suit was dismissed for non-prosecution, as appellants failed to engage counsel and present rebuttal evidence, incurs a cost penalty, while final decree proceedings continue.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution with payment of Rs.10,000 to Advocate Clerks Benevolent Fund; liberty to proceed with final decree.

Ramanna Shetty (Since Deceased) Vs Vanaja Shedthi — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:38738 RFA No. 709 of 2005

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2005 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMANNA SHETTY, (SINCE DECEASED) AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O LATE SANKAMMA SHEDTHI,

¶9

ALUNJE OF AROOR VILLAGE, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶10

1(A). AKKAYYA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O RAMANNA SHETTY,

¶11

1(B). SAROJA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶12

1(C). LALITHA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

1(D). BHASKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶15

1(E). SUMITHRA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶16

1(F). JAYAKARA SHETTY,

¶17

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ALL ARE CHILDREN OF RAMANNA SHETTY, RESIDING IN THOTADAMANE, ALUNJE, AROOR VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK - 576 101.

¶18

…APPELLANTS (1(A) AKKAYYA SHEDTHI,1(B) SAROJA SHEDTHI, 1(C) LALITHA SHEDTHI, 1(D) BHASKARA SHETTY, 1(E) SUMITHRA SHEDTHI, 1(F) JAYAKARA SHETTY, (ABSENT))

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38738 RFA No. 709 of 2005

¶20

AND:

¶21

VANAJA SHEDTHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, D/O PADDAKKA SHEDTHI,

¶22

MALINI SHEDTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶23

SANTHOSH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶24

SHALINI,

¶25

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶26

RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT RESIDING IN PADU BAIKADY OF BAIKADY VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA POST, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101.

¶27

MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE SANKAMMA SHEDTHI,

¶28

KARJE OF HOSUR VILLAGE, UDUPI.

¶29

SHEKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O PADDAKA SHEDTHI, ALUNJE OF AROOR VILLAGE, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. SAMPATH ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 APPEAL AGAINST R5 AND R6 STANDS ABATED)

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38738 RFA No. 709 of 2005

¶33

THIS RFA FILED U/S 96 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.9.2004 PASSED IN OS.NO. 114/1993 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), UDUPI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶34

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

The captioned regular first appeal is filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.1, assailing the judgment and decree rendered by the court below in drawing a preliminary decree and granting joint 4/7^th share to plaintiffs No.1 to 4.

¶38

In the suit, the original defendant No.1 appeared and took the contention that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties and since the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in his individual capacity, these properties are not available for partition. After the death of defendant No.1, legal heirs of defendant

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38738 RFA No. 709 of 2005

¶40

No.1, have contested the suit but strangely have not chosen to step-in to the witness box. Defendants having failed to step-in to the witness box and in absence of rebuttal evidence, the Trial Court has decreed the suit. It is also evidenced from the records that the parties to the suit have unequivocally admitted that they are governed by Aliyasanthana.

¶41

In absence of contest by the legal heirs of defendant No.1, this captioned appeal cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The counsel on record has retired from the case. This matter was adjourned to enable the appellants to engage counsel. No efforts are made by the appellants herein to engage a counsel. It seems that the appellants have lost interest in prosecuting the appeal and therefore, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in keeping this appeal pending, more particularly in the light of the fact that the appellants herein have not let in any rebuttal evidence to substantiate that suit properties are self-acquired properties of Ramanna Shetty.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:38738 RFA No. 709 of 2005

¶44

In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the Advocate Clerks Benevolent Fund.

¶45

The plaintiffs are at liberty to proceed with final decree proceedings. The final decree court shall expedite and pass final decree at the earliest since the suit is of the year 1993.

¶46

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶47

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: BHK

Ramanna Shetty (Since Deceased) v. Vanaja Shedthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanna Shetty (Since Deceased) v. Vanaja Shedthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Indiramma Vs State of Karnataka

Dr.J.M. Chandra Kishan Vs Sri S. Srinatha Rao

Smt Saraswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sundari W/O Late Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.P. Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagahanumaiah M a Vs the Deputy Commissioner