Ramanna Vs Jayalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ramanna Vs Jayalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12172 RFA No. 649 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.649 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

RAMANNA S/O KADARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OWNER, VIJAYA WINES, R/O BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, B.G. NAGAR POST, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.VISHWANATHA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

B.R. SRINIVASA, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

B.R. RANGASWAMY,

S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, B.G. NAGARA POST, BELLUR HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12172 RFA No. 649 of 2025

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE BALLARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

VENKATESHA, S/O LATE BALLARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

PRAKASHA, S/O LATE BALLARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

SHANTHAKUMAR, S/O LATE BALLARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

VASANTHAMMA, W/O LATE MUDLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

RAGHU S/O LATE MUDLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

DILEEPA,

S/O LATE MUDLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/O NO.16, SRI RANGA KRUPA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 50.

SRINIVASA S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12172 RFA No. 649 of 2025

CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE SEETHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

ARJUN, S/O LATE SEETHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

BHARATH, S/O LATE SEETHARAMU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

HUCHEGOWDA, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.358, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, NAGENDRA BLOCK, GIRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 50.

16. ARATHI S/O RAJEGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 7 & 11 TO 14, 16 ARE R/O BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLUR HOBLI, B.G. NAGAR POST, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

…RESPONDENTS

THE RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.12.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.2/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC NAGAMANGALA DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:12172 RFA No. 649 of 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal, which reads as follows:

" MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

The undersigned counsel appearing for the appellant herein most respectfully submits that the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the order passed in O.S. No.2/2020. Subsequently, the appellant came to know that the appellant's jurisdiction to challenge the impugned order is before the Hon'ble District Judge, Mandya, and not before this Hon'ble Court. As such the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the appellant to withdraw the above appeal and permit him to challenge the same before the Hon'ble District Judge, Mandya by excluding the limitation period of time which is spent here in the above appeal. Hence, this Memo."

In terms of the above memo, appeal is disposed of as

withdrawn.

Registry is directed to return all the papers to the appellant, without any delay.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86