Dismissed¶56

Bettaiah v. Smt. Puttankamma

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025RSA/2079/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of regular second appeal with liberty; compromise decree in R.A.No.7/1996 contended not binding on non-parties to the compromise petition; appellants Bettaiah and others v. Puttankamma (dead by L.Rs.) and others; RSA No. 2079 of 2013 under S.100 CPC against R.A.No.263/2010 (II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya) confirming decree dated 06.03.2010 in O.S.No.122/2009 (old No.277/05) (Civil Judge Sr.Dn., Pandavapura); dismissed as withdrawn on 24.11.2025; pending IAs disposed; no merits adjudicated; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:49043.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellants to approach the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/1996; pending interlocutory applications, if any, disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ¶56

Bettaiah Vs Smt. Puttankamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants, who contend they were not parties to the compromise petition in R.A.No.7/1996, are bound by the compromise decree passed therein - raised as the ground for seeking withdrawal of this appeal, and not adjudicated by this Court.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the appellants to approach the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/1996 on the footing that they were not parties to the compromise petition and the compromise decree therein is not binding on them; the respondents' counsel did not dispute the withdrawal.

¶56

Key takeaways

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Ashok S.Kinagi, J., oral judgment, 24.11.2025): Regular Second Appeal No.2079 of 2013 (filed under S.100 CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2013 in R.A.No.263/2010 (II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya), which had dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2010 in O.S.No.122/2009 (old No.277/05) of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Pandavapura. After arguing the matter for some time, the appellants' counsel filed a memo seeking leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/1996, on the ground that the appellants were not parties to the compromise petition and the compromise decree passed in R.A.No.7/1996 is not binding on them; the respondents' counsel did not dispute this. The Court took the memo on record and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty; pending interlocutory applications, if any, were held not to survive and were disposed of accordingly. No merits were adjudicated and no precedent was cited or relied upon; the value of the decision lies in the liberty preserved to contest the R.A.No.7/1996 compromise decree as non-parties to the compromise petition.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49043 RSA No. 2079 of 2013

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶8

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2079 OF 2013

¶9

(DEC/INJ)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BETTAIAH S/O BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶12

SMT HALAMMA W/O HONNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT SUBBAMMA W/O KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶15

SMT SAKAMMA W/O SANNAIAH,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶17

SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O SWAMY,

¶18

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶19

SMT RENUKA W/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶20

ALL ARE R/AT THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, CHINKURLI VILLAGE,

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:49043 RSA No. 2079 of 2013

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CHINKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR A2 TO A6 SMT. SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR A1)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SMT. PUTTANKAMMA W/O HUTCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (DEAD BY LRS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 10 )

¶28

SMT JAVARAMMA, W/O NINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A HIREMARALI VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455

¶29

SRI SANAPAPAIAH S/O HUTCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶30

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶31

SRI NAGARAJA S/O JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶32

SRI MANJU S/O JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶33

SMT SHOBA D/O JAVARAIAH,

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:49043 RSA No. 2079 of 2013

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶37

SMT PUSHPA S/O JAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶38

HEMA D/O SANNAPAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶39

VIJAYAKUMARA S/O SANNAPAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶40

RESPONDENT Nos. 3 TO 10 ARE R/AT THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE, CHINKURLI VILLAGE, CHINKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455

¶41

…RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI. K L SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 IS DECEASED AS PER CAUSE TITLE SRI. V. N. SHANKARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R10

¶43

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.263/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MANDYA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.122/2009 (OLD No.277/05) ON THE FILE OF THE C.J.(Sr.Dn.) AT PANDAVAPURA.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:49043 RSA No. 2079 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶49

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶50

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to approach the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.7/1996 on the ground that the appellants herein were not the parties to the compromise petition and the compromise decree

¶51

passed in R.A.No.7/1996 is not binding on them.

¶52