Dismissed

Sri Revanna v. Smt Puttarevamma

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024RFA/865/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In RSA No. 865 of 2020, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the withdrawal of the First Appeal filed by the Appellants seeking to challenge the partition decree, in view of an amicable settlement entered between the parties during pendency proceedings and the Respondents' non-objection.

What did the court decide?

Appellants are allowed to withdraw the first appeal as of right by way of one prayer.

Sri Revanna Vs Smt Puttarevamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5367-DB RFA No. 865 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. REVANNA, S/O LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O RAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. PUTTAREVAMMA, D/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C

¶14

LAKSHMAMMA,

¶15

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

¶16

Location: HIGH

¶17

COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

SMT. JAYANTHI, D/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶19

SRI KIRASN, S/O LATE LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶20

APPELLANTS NO.4 & 5 ARE R/O GULGAANJANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMOHALLI POST, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5367-DB RFA No. 865 of 2020

¶22

SRI. RENUKAIAH, S/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. GOWRAMMA, D/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶24

SMT. MANGALAMMA, W/O RENUKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶25

APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3, 6 TO 8 ARE R/O LAKKAYYANAPALAYA, RAMOHALLI POST THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶26

…APPELLANTS

¶27

(BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE.,ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SMT. PUTTAREVAMMA, D/O KAWRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.472/1, PEENYA II STAGE, 2^ND CROSS, NAR MARAMMA TEMPLE BANGALORE 560 058.

¶30

SMT. VASANTHA D/O REVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶31

SRI.MANJUNATHA S/O REVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶32

KUM. REKHA D/O REVAMMA

¶33

KUM. GEETHA D/O REVAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶34

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/O NO.29, B.W.S.S.B COLONY, THAVAREKERE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALSORE DISTRICT 562 130.

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5367-DB RFA No. 865 of 2020

¶36

SMT. LALITHA RAVI, W/O B.G. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/A NO.739/3, 3^RD MAIN, 58^TH CROSS, 4^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010.

¶37

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE CHIKKAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O LAKKAYANAPALAYA, KOLUR DAKHALE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.HONNAPPA B V.,ADV., FOR C/R1 TO R5(CP 2125/2019)

¶40

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED IN OS No.752/2014 (OLD No.95/2014) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶41

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, KRISHNA S. DIXIT. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶42

JUDGEMENT

¶43

The appellants have moved a memo dated 26.08.2022 in FDP No.2/2020 and accordingly, the said proceeding has been completed. Now, the appellants have also moved another memo dated 08.02.2024 before this Court seeking leave to withdraw the appeal itself. The memo reads as under:

¶44

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5367-DB RFA No. 865 of 2020

¶45

"It is respectfully submitted that, the Appellants in the above appeal have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Magadi made in O.S. No.752/2014 dated 23.10.2019. During the pendency of the above appeal the Appellants and Respondents have entered into an amicable settlement in FDP proceedings at FDP No.2/2020. Copy of Memo filed in FDP Proceedings is produced along with this Memo. Accordingly on instructions and authorization the Appellant No.7 namely Smt. Gowramma prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly permit her to withdraw the above first appeal to secure the ends of justice and equity."

¶46

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents

¶47

having received a copy of the memo and after reading it,

¶48

signifies his no objection to the prayer for withdrawal.

¶49

In view of the above, this appeal is disposed off as having been withdrawn in terms of the said memo.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

ABK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri Revanna v. Smt Puttarevamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Revanna v. Smt Puttarevamma

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

Sri L Naganna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Seethalaxmi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. B M Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

D N Prabhuswamy Vs Mahadevamma K G

Smt. v R Banu Vs v P Rayappagowda @ Rayagowda

Sri J Ramesh Vs Smt H N Sowbhagya