Dismissed

Jainabhi v. Beeraiah

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2024RSA/1256/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the regular second appeal as it had abated. The court noted that steps were not taken to appoint a legal representative for the deceased first respondent, leading to the arraying of the plaintiff against whom the appeal abated. Consequently, the entire appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Entire appeal dismissed as abated due to failure to appoint a legal representative for the deceased first respondent.

Jainabhi Vs Beeraiah — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43780 RSA No. 1256 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1256 OF 2014 (DEC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

JAINABHI, W/O LATE ABDUL SUKURSAB, SINCE DEAD BY LRS APPELLANTS 4, 5, 7, 8 AND 9

¶7

ABDUL VAHID,

¶8

S/O LATE ABDUL SUKURSAB, SINCE DEAD BY LRS APPELLANT NO.1.

¶9

ABDUL SARADAR, S/O LATE ABDUL SUKURASAB, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶10

MASTER MANZAR, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

¶11

MASTERE SHAHID, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶13

BOTH ARE S/O ABDUL SARDAR AND MINORS REP. BY THEIR PATERNAL UNCLE ABDUL ASKAR @ ABDUL MUNEER, 7^TH APPELLANT

¶14

PATHIMABHI @ ASHA, D/O LATE ABDUL SUKURSAB, MAJOR

¶15

ASMATH @ SAHARAMBHI, D/O ABDUL SUKUR SAB, MAJOR

¶16

ABADUL SALEEM, S/O ABDUL SUKURSAB, SINCE DEAD BY LR 7^TH APPELLANT

¶17

GHOUSE S/O ABUDUL SUKURSAB, SINCE DEAD BY LR 7(a)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43780 RSA No. 1256 of 2014

¶19

ASHNUBI MINOR REP. BY HER GUARDIAN PATERNAL UNCLE ABDUL ASKAR @ ABUDL MUNEER (APPELLANT NO.7)

¶20

ABDUL RABAN, S/O ABBUL SUKUR SAB, MAJOR,

¶21

ABDUL ASKAR @ ABDUL MUNEER, S/O ABDUL SUKUR SAB, MAJOR

¶22

APPELLANT NO.1 TO 7 ARE ALL R/A BANAVARA TOWN, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 112.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

[BY SRI LOKESH KUMAR K.S., ADVOCATE (NOC GIVEN FOR APPELLANT NO.6) SRI B.R. SURESH, ADVOCATE (NOC VK FILED)]

¶25

AND:

¶26

BEERAIAH, S/O YALAGI MALLANAIKA @ MALLINAIKA, R/O BANAVARA TOWN, ARSIKERE TALUK, SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LR's RAMAKRISHANAIAH, MAJOR, R/O KOTE, BANAVARA TOWN, ARSIKERE TALUK - 573 112.

¶27

KAMARAUNNISA, D/O ABDUL SUKURSAB, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O HALLEBEEDU VILLAGE, BELUR TALUK - 573 112.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI PADUBIDRI R. MOHAN RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶30

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.02.2004 PASSED IN R.A.NO.62/1988 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND ADDL. CJM, ARASIKERE, ALLOWING AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43780 RSA No. 1256 of 2014

¶32

AND DECREE DATED 07.10.1988 PASSED IN O.S.NO.121/1997 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN), ARASIKERE.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶35

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶36

Matter is listed for further orders regarding non-taking steps for deceased respondent no.1, who is representing plaintiff in this appeal filed by defendants.

¶37

It is seen that as per memo dated 30.01.2019, death of respondent no.1 was noted in order sheet. Since steps are not taken till today, appeal would abate against respondent no.1. Consequently, entire appeal is dismissed as abated.

¶38

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶39

GRD

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Jainabhi v. Beeraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainabhi v. Beeraiah

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

B Hemanth Kumar Vs Balaramegowda

Ms S M Nanjamma Vs the Tahasildar

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs Sri Muniswamy Reddy

Nanjundappa Vs Channabasappa

Sri Erappa Vs Sri Sri Sri Mahanthaswamy

Sri Nanjeshgowda Vs Smt. Vijayamma