Dismissed¶37

Smt. Lalitha Dayanand v. Smt. B J Suma

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025RFA/335/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RFA 335/2020 (SP) dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2025; parties resolved differences and appellants (legal representatives of Lalitha Dayanand) filed withdrawal memo against respondent B.J. Suma; underlying suit OS No.7743/2009 for specific performance dismissed 15.10.2019 by XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-16); appeal maintained under Order XLI Rule 1 r/w Section 96 CPC; court fee refund directed; return of original documents to respondent; NC 2025:KHC:33487-DB.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn on the strength of the appellants' memo recording resolution of differences between the parties; court fee to be refunded as applicable; original documents produced by the appellants to be returned to the respondent on proper identification and on production of certified copies.

Smt. Lalitha Dayanand Vs Smt. B J Suma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33487-DB RFA No. 335 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 335 OF 2020 (SP)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

1 . SMT. LALITHA DAYANAND SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

¶12

1(a). SRI. B.V. DAYANAND S/O LATE B.P. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶13

1(b). SMT. RASHMI DAYANAND W/O SRI. PRATHAP D/O SRI. DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

1(c). SMT. BABITHA DAYANAND W/O SRI. ROSHAN D/O SRI. DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶16

1(d). SMT. SHRUTHI DAYANAND W/O SRI. SHARATH D/O SRI. DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶17

1(e). SRI. BHARATH DAYANAND S/O SRI. DAYANAND AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:33487-DB RFA No. 335 of 2020

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: RESIDING No.465, 36^TH CROSS 19^TH MAIN, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 041

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR A1(a-e))

¶23

AND:

¶24

SMT. B.J. SUMA W/O M. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT No.38/1 SANIDHI ROAD BASAVANAGUDI ROAD BENGALURU-560 004 PRESENTLY R/AT: No.456/13, 12^TH MAIN, MAGADI CHORD ROAD EXTENSION, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 040

¶25

…RESPONDENT

¶26

(BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 R/W. SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.10.2019 PASSED IN OS No.7743/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33487-DB RFA No. 335 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

BENGALURU (CCH-16) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

¶31

THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

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

¶35

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

¶36

the appellants that parties have resolved their differences and that the appeal may be dismissed as withdrawn. A memo to that effect is also filed.

¶37

Recording the memo filed by the appellants now impleaded, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn . Court fee shall be refunded as applicable.

¶38

The original documents produced by the appellants shall be returned to the respondent on proper

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:33487-DB RFA No. 335 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

identification and on production of certified copies of the

¶43

same.

¶44