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.

Smt Chikka Ammaiah Vs Smt Marakka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Smt Chikka Ammaiah Vs Smt MarakkaSmt Chikka Ammaiah v. Smt Marakka

Dismissed¶36

Smt Chikka Ammaiah v. Smt Marakka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2025RFA/849/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:41340; RFA No. 849 of 2017 (PAR); Chikka Ammaiah W/o Chandrappa (appellant, adv. Sri P B Raju) vs Smt Marakka W/o Kariyappa, Sri Nanjundappa S/o Late Kakanna and Smt Rathnamma W/o Ramanna (respondents, adv. Sri B. Ramesh); partition and separate possession suit O.S.No.605/2007, Senior Civil Judge, Anekal; plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC (IA No.15 under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 CPC); impugned order dated 05.04.2017; appeal under Section 96 CPC; amicable settlement between appellant and respondent No.2; relinquishment deed and gift deed registered 24.09.2025; memo dated 09.10.2025; appeal infructuous; dismissed as settled out of Court; decided 16 October 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha.

What did the court decide?

In view of the memo filed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 recording the amicable settlement between the appellant and respondent No.2, the present appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.605/2007 (suit for partition and separate possession) was validly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — the subject matter of this appeal under Section 96 CPC, which remained unadjudicated as the appeal was dismissed as settled. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the memo filed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 recording the amicable settlement between the appellant and respondent No.2, the present appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 849 of 2017 (PAR) — Chikka Ammaiah v. Marakka and others (High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; K.S. Hemalekha, J.; 16.10.2025): Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the order dated 05.04.2017 passed on IA No.15 in O.S.No.605/2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal, whereby the plaint in a suit for partition and separate possession was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 CPC. Before adjudication, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed a memo dated 09.10.2025 stating that the appellant and respondent No.2 had amicably settled their dispute over the suit schedule properties — the appellant having executed a registered relinquishment deed relinquishing her right, title and interest therein, and respondent No.2 having gifted some of the said properties to her, both deeds duly registered on 24.09.2025 — rendering the appeal infructuous. Held: in view of the memo, the appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court. The merits of the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC were not adjudicated.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41340 RFA No. 849 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2017 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT CHIKKA AMMAIAH W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT AREHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK- 562107. (BY SRI. P B RAJU., ADVOCATE)

…APPELLANT

AND:

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT MARAKKA W/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KARPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK- 562106.

SRI. NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE KAKANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DASANAPURA VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK- 562107.

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DODDA ELASAGERE, MOKANDAHALLI POST, HOSUR TALUK. T.M- 560 030.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41340 RFA No. 849 of 2017

HC-KAR

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.RAMESH., ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 05.04.2017 PASSED ON IA.NO.15 IN OS.NO.605/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE, ANEKAL., ALLOWING THE IA.NO.15 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (a) &(d) READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a memo dated 09.10.2025, which reads as under:

" 1. The respondent No.2 above name respectfully submits that, the appeal filed by the appellant has become infructuous in view of the fact that both the appellant and 2nd respondent has settled the dispute amicably among themselves in respect of the suit schedule properties wherein the appellant has executed a registered relinquishment deed wherein the appellant had relinquished her valid right, title and interest over the suit schedule properties in respect of the suit schedule properties and consequently, 2nd respondent out of his love and affection towards appellant had gifted some of the suit schedule properties which was also registered and the said relinquishment deed and gift

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:41340 RFA No. 849 of 2017

HC-KAR

deed was duly registered on 24.09.2025 and the appellant has accepted the same. The copies of the release deed and gift deed is produced along this memo.

2. It is submitted that, in view of the same the appeal filed by the appellant has become infructuous. Hence, in view of the same this memo may be accepted, in the interest of justice and equity."

Suit in O.S.No.605/2007 for partition and

separate possession, the Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

the present appeal has become infructuous as the dispute had been amicably resolved between the appellant and respondent No.2.

In view of memo filed, the present appeal is

dismissed as settled out of Court.

Sd/-

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

PHM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the plaint in O.S.No.605/2007 (suit for partition and separate possession) was validly rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — the subject matter of this appeal under Section 96 CPC, which remained unadjudicated as the appeal was dismissed as settled.medium confidence¶21
2.
Whether, in view of the amicable settlement between the appellant and respondent No.2 recorded in the memo dated 09.10.2025, the appeal has become infructuous and should be dismissed as settled out of Court.¶34
The court held
In view of the memo filed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 recording the amicable settlement between the appellant and respondent No.2, the present appeal is dismissed as settled out of Court.ratio¶36

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 96¶21 Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151¶21 Order VII Rule 11¶32

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 05.04.2017 passed on IA No.15 in O.S.No.605/2007, allowing IA No.15 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaint¶21
Senior Civil Judge, Anekal · 05.04.2017
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.605/2007 instituted for partition and separate possession¶31
Prior proceeding
Trial Court rejected the plaint in O.S.No.605/2007 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC¶32
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed a memo dated 09.10.2025 recording that the appellant and respondent No.2 had amicably settled the dispute over the suit schedule properties, rendering the appeal infructuous¶25
Prior proceeding
Registered relinquishment deed executed by the appellant and gift deed by respondent No.2 over suit schedule properties, both duly registered on 24.09.2025¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Smt. Chikka Ammaiah W/o Chandrappa¶9
Sri. P B Raju
respondent
Smt. Marakka W/o Kariyappa¶13
Sri. B. Ramesh
respondent
Sri. Nanjundappa S/o Late Kakanna¶14
Sri. B. Ramesh
respondent
Smt. Rathnamma W/o Ramanna¶15
Sri. B. Ramesh

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekhaauthor¶23

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 16 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 27 Apr 2017
Case no.: RFA/849/2017
CNR: KAHC010224962017
Bench: K.s. Hemalekha
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Regular First Appeal (PAR)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from K.s. Hemalekha

Smt Kempamma R Vs State of Karnataka
15 Oct 2025
Smt J Shantha Vs the State of Karnataka
15 Oct 2025
Sri.L.M.Vasudeva Murthy Vs the Additional Chief Secretary
15 Oct 2025
Sri Munirajappa Vs State of Karnataka
16 Oct 2025
D Govind Raj Vs the State of Karnataka
16 Oct 2025
R S Babu Naidu Vs State of Karnataka
16 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

Smt Chikka Ammaiah v. Smt Marakka, RFA/849/2017 (KA), decided on 16 October 2025.

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

Statutes3

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 96 · Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 · Order VII Rule 11

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Order dated 05.04.2017 passed on IA No.15 in O.S.No.605/2007, allowing IA No.15 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of the plaintSenior Civil Judge, Anekal · 05.04.2017
Suit O.S.No.605/2007 instituted for partition and separate possession
Trial Court rejected the plaint in O.S.No.605/2007 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha

Parties & counsel