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 R Mala Vs Mahadeva — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Smt R Mala Vs MahadevaSmt R Mala v. Mahadeva

Dismissed¶31

Smt R Mala v. Mahadeva

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025RSA/1109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 1109 of 2021, Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru) dismissed as infructuous upon settlement between the parties; compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC recorded in execution case Ex-27/2017 on 22.11.2024 before Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar; permissible refund of court fee allowed. Statute references: Sec.100 CPC; Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Decided 19.09.2025 by Justice V Srishananda; Neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:37885. Underlying matters: OS.No.247/2011 (decree 25.07.2017) and first appeal RA.No.118/2017 (judgment 11.09.2019, Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chamarajanagara). Parties: Smt. R Mala, Hemalatha and minor Amrutha (appellants, through mother/guardian Smt. R Mala) versus Mahadeva (respondent); advocates: Smt. Sumathi S for appellants, Sri. P. Mahesha for respondent.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the appeal as infructuous, with permissible refund of Court fee allowed (sought in the name of the 1st appellant).

Why is it important?

On the appellants' memo disclosing that the parties had settled the matter by a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC recorded in Ex-27/2017 before the executing court, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. ¶31

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal of the appeal as infructuous, with permissible refund of Court fee allowed (sought in the name of the 1st appellant).

Ratio / Principle

On the appellants' memo disclosing that the parties had settled the matter by a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC recorded in Ex-27/2017 before the executing court, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

Key takeaways

Permissible refund of the Court fee paid on the appeal is allowed (the memo sought refund in the name of the 1st appellant).ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (V Srishananda, J.; Oral Order dated 19.09.2025) in RSA No. 1109 of 2021 filed under S.100 of CPC by the widow and daughters of Late Mahadeva @ M Madeva against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2019 in RA.No.118/2017 (Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chamarajanagara), which had dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017 in OS.No.247/2011 (Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Chamarajanagar). On a memo by the appellants' counsel stating that the parties had filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC in Ex-27/2017 before the executing court on 22.11.2024, which the executing court was proceeding to give effect to, and seeking disposal of the appeal as settled with refund of court fees, the Court placed the memo on record, dismissed the appeal as infructuous, and permitted refund of the Court fee.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:37885 RSA No. 1109 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. R MALA W/O LATE MAHADEVA @ M MADEVA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

HEMALATHA

D/O LATE MAHADEVA @ M MADEVA, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,

AMRUTHA

D/O LATE MAHADEVA @ M MADEVA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. R MALA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHANNIPURADAMOLE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 313.

…APPELLANTS

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SMT. SUMATHI S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MAHADEVA

S/O LATE MANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANNIPURADAMOLE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. P. MAHESHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.118/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC., CHAMARAJANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.07.2017 PASSED IN OS.NO. 247/2011 ON THE FILE

NC: 2025:KHC:37885 RSA No. 1109 of 2021

2 -

HC-KAR

OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHAMARAJANAGAR.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

A memo is filed by learned counsel for the appellants.

Memo reads as under:

“The appellants respectfully submit that the parties have filed compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC in Ex-27/2017 on the file of Addl., Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar on 22.11.2024. The Executing Court is proceeding with the petition in order to comply with the terms of the compromise petition. The copy of the order dated 22.11.2024 recording the compromise from the official website of the Trial Court and office copy of the compromise petition filed by the parties are herewith annexed with this memo, for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. Hence this Hon’nle Court may be pleased to dispose the above appeal as settled before the Trial Court and pass suitable orders for refund of the court fees paid by the appellants in the above appeal in name of the 1^st appellant, in the interest of justice and equity.”

Placing the memo on record, appeal is dismissed as

it has rendered infructuous.

Permissible refund of Court fee is allowed.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

KAV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46/CT: BHK

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)Section 100¶21 Order XXIII Rule 3¶30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 11.09.2019 in RA.No.118/2017 (first appeal), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017 in OS.No.247/2011.¶21
Additional Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC., Chamarajanagara · 11.09.2019
Prior proceeding
Original suit OS.No.247/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chamarajanagar, decided by judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017.¶21
Prior proceeding
Parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC in Ex-27/2017 (execution proceedings) before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar on 22.11.2024; the executing court was proceeding to comply with the terms of the compromise, prompting the appellants' memo seeking disposal of this appeal as settled and refund of court fee.¶30

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
SMT. R MALA W/O LATE MAHADEVA @ M MADEVA¶8
SMT. SUMATHI S
appellant
HEMALATHA D/O LATE MAHADEVA @ M MADEVA¶9
SMT. SUMATHI S
appellant
AMRUTHA D/O LATE MAHADEVA @ M MADEVA (MINOR REP. BY MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. R MALA)¶11
SMT. SUMATHI S
respondent
MAHADEVA S/O LATE MANASHETTY¶17
SRI. P. MAHESHA

Coram

AI extract

V SRISHANANDAauthor¶26

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 19 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 17 Dec 2021
Case no.: RSA/1109/2021
CNR: KAHC010161192021
Bench: V Srishananda
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: RSA

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V Srishananda

Sri Rakeshkumar Manoharlal Vs A.S. Rajakumar
18 Sept 2025
Parappa Vs Rangaiah
18 Sept 2025
Mysuru Urban Development Authority Vs Mr T N Gurumurthy
18 Sept 2025
Sri R N Ramachandraiah Setty Vs Sri Thomas Kutty
19 Sept 2025
B.N. Kariyappa Vs B.C Shivanna
19 Sept 2025
Sri Here Ammanavara Basadi Vs Mr. Narendra Ballal
19 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

Smt R Mala v. Mahadeva, RSA/1109/2021 (KA), decided on 19 September 2025.

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

Statutes2

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)Section 100 · Order XXIII Rule 3

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment and decree dated 11.09.2019 in RA.No.118/2017 (first appeal), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017 in OS.No.247/2011.Additional Senior Civil Judge, and JMFC., Chamarajanagara · 11.09.2019
Original suit OS.No.247/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Chamarajanagar, decided by judgment and decree dated 25.07.2017.
Parties filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC in Ex-27/2017 (execution proceedings) before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajanagar on 22.11.2024; the executing court was proceeding to comply with the terms of the compromise, prompting the appellants' memo seeking disposal of this appeal as settled and refund of court fee.

View full history

Bench / Coram

V SRISHANANDA

Parties & counsel