Dismissed¶45

Pushpa v. P Pramila

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025RFA/169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:1560-DB; RFA No. 169 of 2018 (PAR); decided 16-01-2025; bench: K. Somashekar J (author) and Venkatesh Naik T J; appeal under Section 96 CPC against judgment and decree dated 27.11.2017 in O.S.No.50/2012 (I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Davanagere) decreeing plaintiff's suit; appellants Pushpa, Deepak, Sandepa (counsel S V Prakash) v. respondents P Pramila, Bageerathi, C Chetan, C Chilpa, Rajkumar, Gopal, Rajashekar, Meenakshi, Manjula (counsel Muni Raju S); disposed on out-of-court settlement memo; appeal dismissed as withdrawn; no merits adjudicated.

What did the court decide?

The memo filed by learned counsel Sri S.V.Prakash for the appellants, recording that the parties have amicably settled the dispute between them out of Court, is taken on record. ¶44

Pushpa Vs P Pramila — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1560-DB RFA No. 169 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2018 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PUSHPA

¶11

W/O LATE VENKATESH MURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶12

DEEPAK

¶13

S/O LATE VENKATESH MURTHY AGED ABUT 26 YEARS

¶14

SANDEPA S/O LATE VENKATESH MURTHY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMATHY APPELLANTS ARE RESIDENT OF KANNAN D.NO.172, 2^ND MAIN ROAD Location: High P J EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577001. Court of Karnataka

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH – ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

P PRAMILA D/O B N CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O SUKH VASATI D NO.66/29, 2^ND FLOOR DEAD END ROAD, NAGAPPA STREET PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-560003.

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1560-DB RFA No. 169 of 2018

¶21

BAGEERATHI W/O LATE P NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D NO.890, 1^ST CROSS 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGARA BENGALURU-5600035.

¶22

C CHETAN S/O K M VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶23

C CHILPA S/O K M VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶24

RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE CHILDREN OF KAMALAMMA D/O TARAGAR PAPANNA R/O 734, 2^ND B CROSS 8^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095.

¶25

RAJKUMAR S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶26

GOPAL S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶27

RAJASHEKAR S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶28

RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE CHILDREN OF VEDAVATHI D/O TARAGAR PAPANNA R/O.1095, 9^TH CROSS KAVERIPURA KAMAKSHIPALYA BENGALURU-560079.

¶29

MEENAKSHI

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1560-DB RFA No. 169 of 2018

¶31

D/O DAVANAGERE TARAGAR PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O 734, 2^ND B BLOCK 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095.

¶32

9. MANJULA

¶33

W/O MUNIRAJU D/O DAVANAGERE TARAGAR PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.734, 2ND B BLOCK 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. MUNI RAJU S – ADVOCATE)

¶36

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.11.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.50/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I-ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IN DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL; DISMISS THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/FIRST RESPONDENT IN P.S.NO.50/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I-ADDL.SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1560-DB RFA No. 169 of 2018

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶42

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered by the Court below in O.S.No.50/2012 dated 27.11.2017 by urging various grounds.

¶43

Learned counsel Sri S.V.Prakash for the appellants is present before the Court physically and submits that the parties have amicably settled the dispute in between them and the appeal may be dismissed as having been settled between the parties out of Court. A memo is filed by him in this regard.

¶44

The memo is taken on record. Accordingly, the

¶45

appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶46

SD/(K.SOMASHEKAR)

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

SD/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶49

DKB