Dismissed¶52

Rangaiah v. Thimmakka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2025RFA/2077/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC RFA 2077/2024 (PAR); partition and separate possession suit OS.No.990/2022, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tumakuru, partly decreed 26.06.2024; appeal under Section 96 / Section 96(2) CPC dismissed as withdrawn; liberty reserved to seek relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for grievance of no proper opportunity to contest suit; single judge Sachin Shankar Magadum; decided 10 July 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the appellants to seek appropriate relief under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if so advised and permissible in law. ¶52

Rangaiah Vs Thimmakka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2077 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN:

¶7

RANGAIAH

¶8

S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶9

ERAMMA

¶10

D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶11

MANJANNA S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶14

SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶15

NEELAMMA

¶16

D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶17

ALL RESIDING AT PALIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNENAHALLI POST,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 128.

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. KISHAN G.S, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THIMMAKKA

¶26

W/O LATE ERAIAH AGED 65 YEARS,

¶27

BALAIAH S/O LATE ERAIAH AGED 44 YEARS,

¶28

SHIVAMMA D/O LATE ERAIAH W/O ERABALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

4. GOWRAMMA

D//O LATE ERAIAH

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

BALAIAH

¶33

S//O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶34

PALIRANGAIAH

¶35

S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNENAHALLI POST, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 128.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

7. KARIYAPPA

¶40

S//O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNENAHALLI POST, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572128

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KUSHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 - BALAIAH - SERVED; R7 - KARIYAPPA - SERVED)

¶43

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.990/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶44

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

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶46

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellants, having advanced arguments on merits, was queried by this Court as to how the appellants, while maintaining the present appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could assail the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

impugned judgment and decree on the ground that no proper opportunity was afforded to contest the suit. In response, learned counsel submitted that the appellants intend to withdraw the appeal, reserving liberty to avail the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.

¶52

In light of the aforesaid submission, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the appellants to seek appropriate relief under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if so advised and permissible in law.

¶53

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶54

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK

Rangaiah v. Thimmakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaiah v. Thimmakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Federation of Residents Community Entities Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Govindaiah N Vs the Karnataka Housing Board

Mr. Oswald Dsilva Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Pushpalatha J Jogottu Vs Sri. Lakshmisha

Hanumanthappa Vs B. Rudrappa

Murugan P Vs the Chief Commissioner