Dismissed¶43

K M Pradeep v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2025MFA/3818/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; MFA No.3818/2025 (ISA) under S.299 Indian Succession Act; withdrawal of miscellaneous first appeal on memo dated 18.11.2025 recording amicable settlement; challenge to judgment dated 01.03.2025 and decree dated 11.03.2025 in O.S.No.6/2020, III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga; appellant K.M. Pradeep; respondents legal representatives of deceased Rathnamma (Ravi, Anusuya, Yashodamma, Kousalya, Vinoda, Prema, Keshava, Manappa Gowda, Shyla); counsel Sri. P.N. Harish; coram Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil JJ.; decided 27.11.2025; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; pending applications do not survive.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the appeal granted on the appellant's memo dated 18.11.2025; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.

K M Pradeep Vs Rathnamma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49398-DB M.F.A. No.3818/2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3818/2025 (ISA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K.M. PRADEEP S/O MANAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O. KOODLIGE VILLAGE MALURU POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. P.N. HARISH, ADV.,)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

RATHNAMMA S/O THIMMAIAH GOWDA DEAD BY HER LR'S.

¶15

SRI. RAVI S/O THAMMAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION COURT COMPLEX, THIRTHAHALLI-577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶16

SMT. ANUSUYA W/O SATHISHA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49398-DB M.F.A. No.3818/2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/O KALLOLLI VILLAGE SRINGERI TALUK-577139 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶20

SMT. YASHODAMMA W/O KADAPPA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O SHETIGALAKOPPA VILLAGE UNTORKATTE, KALMARA POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT.

¶21

SMT. KOUSALYA W/O RAMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O. HOLEKOPPA, SRINGERI-577139 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶22

SMT. VINODA W/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O. KAREKUMBRI, VATEHALLA AGUMBE HOBLI THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577432 SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT.

¶23

SMT. PREMA W/O RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O SIDIMANE, KENDALBAIL POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT.

¶24

SRI. KESHAVA S/O THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O MELINAKODIGE, MALURU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT.

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49398-DB M.F.A. No.3818/2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

SRI. MANAPPA GOWDA S/O THIMMAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O MELINAKODIGE, MALURU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT.

¶28

SMT. SHYLA W/O MANMATHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O HOSAKOPPA, ARALASURALI POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 SHIVAMOGGA DISRICT.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.299 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.03.2025 AND THE DECREE DATED 11.03.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA IN O.S.NO.6/2020 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE PETITION IN O.S.NO.6/2020 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL & ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:49398-DB M.F.A. No.3818/2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated

¶39

18.11.2025 seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal.

¶40

2. Memo reads as under:

¶41

"The appellant respectfully submits that the dispute between him and the respondents have been settled amicably and as such the appellant did not intend to prosecute the above appeal and the same may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn by considering this memo in the ends of justice."

¶42

3. Memo is placed on record.

¶43

4. In view of the aforesaid memo, appeal is dismissed

¶44

as withdrawn.

¶45

Pending applications, if any, would not survive for consideration.

¶46

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶47

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE