Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri R Radhakrishna Pillai Vs Smt K v Shashikala — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri R Radhakrishna Pillai Vs Smt K v ShashikalaSri R Radhakrishna Pillai v. Smt K v Shashikala

Dismissed¶47

Sri R Radhakrishna Pillai v. Smt K v Shashikala

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2025RFA/160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition appeal disposed by withdrawal: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, RFA No.160/2018 (Par), decided 09.06.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:19538-DB), bench Anu Sivaraman and K. Manmadha Rao JJ., oral judgment per Anu Sivaraman J. Appeal under Sec.96 and Order XLI Rules 1-2 CPC from judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 in O.S. No.192/2015, III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar (suit for partition and separate possession partly decreed). Appellants (R. Radhakrishna Pillai, P. Sunil Kumar, K. Sudhish; counsel Sri. Pattabi Raman C.) withdrew the appeal as not pressed by memo; connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021 expressly unaffected ('without prejudice'). Disposition: dismissed as withdrawn; original documents (Annexure 'D' series) to be returned on proper identification after substituting certified copies. Respondents 2 and 5 served and unrepresented. Keywords: withdrawal of appeal, not pressed, memo, without prejudice, return of original documents, certified copies, partition, Kolar. No merits adjudication; no case-law cited; no amounts.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn (not pressed); original documents produced by the appellants to be returned on proper identification after substituting certified copies. ¶47

Why is it important?

This appeal (RFA No.160/2018) is dismissed as withdrawn, the withdrawal being without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021. ¶47

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn (not pressed); original documents produced by the appellants to be returned on proper identification after substituting certified copies.

Issue for consideration

Whether RFA No.160/2018 may be dismissed as withdrawn (as not pressed) without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021.

Court's answer

This appeal (RFA No.160/2018) is dismissed as withdrawn, the withdrawal being without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021.

Ratio / Principle

The original documents produced by the appellants shall be returned to the appellants on proper identification after substituting certified copies of the same.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No.160/2018 (Par) — High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (oral judgment per Anu Sivaraman J.; coram Anu Sivaraman and K. Manmadha Rao JJ.), dated 09.06.2025 — appeal under Sec.96 and Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 passed in O.S. No.192/2015 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, partly decreeing a suit for partition and separate possession — coming on for orders, the appellants' counsel (Sri. Pattabi Raman C.) filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed and return of the original documents marked Annexure 'D' series — counsel for the appellant in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021 sought dismissal of RFA No.160/2018 as withdrawn without prejudice to the contentions of the parties therein — the Court held that the withdrawal would not prejudice the parties in RFA No.1244/2021, dismissed RFA No.160/2018 as withdrawn, and directed that the original documents produced by the appellants be returned on proper identification after substituting certified copies — no adjudication on merits; no precedent discussed — text corrected as per Chambers Order dated 09.07.2025.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19538-DB RFA No. 160 of 2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 160 OF 2018 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI S/O SRI. RAGHAVAN PILLAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT:No.5, DUVARAYAM 1^ST CROSS, R.R. LAYOUT NEA JUBILEE SCHOOL VIJANAPAURA BENGALURU-560 016

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. P. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SRI. K.C.R. NAMBIAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT No.3, SREEPADAM HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU-560 016

SRI. K. SUDHISH S/O SRI. KRUNAKARA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT: HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD RAMAMAURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU-560 016

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. PATTABI RAMAN C., ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19538-DB RFA No. 160 of 2018

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT. K.V. SHASHIKALA W/O SRI. DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT: KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 102

KUMARI. K.V. KUSUMITHA D/O SRI. N.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT. D. SHARADAMMA R/AT: KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563 102

SMT. MAMATHA NAGARAJA W/O SRI. B.C. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT: WARD No.85 DODDANEKKDUNDI KARTHIKNAGAR A.R.D.E. LAYOUT, 1^ST CROSS DOOR No.201, RING ROAD MARTHAHALLI BENGALURU-560 037

SRI. N. SAMPANNA S/O SRI. C. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

SRI. N. VENKATESH S/O SRI. C. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YAERS

SRI. RAMAKRISHNA S/O SRI. C. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

RESPONDENTS No.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT: KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19538-DB RFA No. 160 of 2018

HC-KAR

VEMGAL HOBLI

KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 102

…RESPONDENTS

(BY R2 & R5 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 AND ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, PRAYING TO JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.12.2017 PASSED IN O.S. No.192/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR PARTLY DECREEING SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed and for return of the original documents marked as Annexure-*' D ' series.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021 submits that RFA No.160/2018 may be dismissed as withdrawn, however without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant in RFA No.1244/2021 and on the condition that withdrawal of RFA

*Corrected as per the Chambers Order dated 09.07.2025

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19538-DB RFA No. 160 of 2018

HC-KAR

No.160/2018 will not prejudice the contentions of the parties in RFA No.1244/2021.

In the above view of the matter, this appeal is

dismissed as withdrawn. The original documents produced by the appellants shall be returned to the appellants on proper identification after substituting with certified copies of the same.

It is made clear that withdrawal of RFA No.160/2018 will not prejudice the contentions of the appellant in RFA 1244/2021.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether RFA No.160/2018 may be dismissed as withdrawn (as not pressed) without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021.medium confidence¶45
The court held
This appeal (RFA No.160/2018) is dismissed as withdrawn, the withdrawal being without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021.ratio¶47

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

CPC96¶34 Order XLI Rule 1 and 2¶34

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 in O.S. No.192/2015 partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession¶34
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar · 12.12.2017
Prior proceeding
RFA No.160/2018 filed under Sec.96 and Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 in O.S. No.192/2015¶34
Prior proceeding
Appellants' learned counsel filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed and return of the original documents marked Annexure 'D' series¶39
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the appellant in the connected appeal RFA No.1244/2021 submitted that RFA No.160/2018 may be dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the contentions of the parties in RFA No.1244/2021¶40

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Sri. R. Radhakrishna Pillai¶10
Sri. Pattabi Raman C.
appellant
Sri. P. Sunil Kumar¶12
Sri. Pattabi Raman C.
appellant
Sri. K. Sudhish¶13
Sri. Pattabi Raman C.
respondent
Smt. K.V. Shashikala¶20
respondent
Kumari. K.V. Kusumitha¶21
respondent
Smt. Mamatha Nagaraja¶22
respondent
Sri. N. Sampanna¶23
respondent
Sri. N. Venkatesh¶24
respondent
Sri. Ramakrishna¶25

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaramanauthor¶38
Hon'ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Raomember¶36

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 9 Jun 2025 · June
Registered: 18 Jan 2018
Case no.: RFA/160/2018
CNR: KAHC010328372018
Bench: Anu Sivaraman K.manmadha Rao
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: RFA

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Anu Sivaraman K.manmadha Rao

Sri Jayaram B S Vs Nil
6 Jun 2025
Sri. Harish. S Vs the State of Karnataka
6 Jun 2025
M/S San Electro Controls Vs M/S Sahyadri Electro Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.
5 Jun 2025
Smt. Ammaiah Vs Punjab National Bank
9 Jun 2025
Dr. Jayasukrutamma. D. N. Vs State of Karnataka
12 Jun 2025
Transport Corporation of India, Tci Freight Vs Jindal Aluminium Limited
12 Jun 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri R Radhakrishna Pillai v. Smt K v Shashikala, RFA/160/2018 (KA), decided on 9 June 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

CPC96 · Order XLI Rule 1 and 2

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 in O.S. No.192/2015 partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possessionIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar · 12.12.2017
RFA No.160/2018 filed under Sec.96 and Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2017 in O.S. No.192/2015
Appellants' learned counsel filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed and return of the original documents marked Annexure 'D' series

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman and Hon'ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao

Parties & counsel