Dismissed¶¶38

Smt. Lakshmamma v. Sri. Dasegowda

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025RSA/498/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No. 498 of 2022, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Natarajan, decided 09.01.2025. Second appeal under Sec.100 CPC against dismissal of first appeal RA.No.156/2013 confirming partition decree dated 03.08.2013 in OS.No.19/2005 (Hassan courts). Sole appellant Smt. Lakshmamma died; respondents are her children who already hold the decree; no decree in deceased appellant's favour; appeal dismissed as abated. No precedent cited, no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

In view of the death of the appellant (wife of defendant No.1), the other respondents-defendants being the children of the appellant who have already obtained the decree, and since there is no decree in favour of the appellant, the appeal does not survive. ¶¶33

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri. Dasegowda — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:926 RSA No. 498 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 498 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O A GUDUGANAHALLI, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN - 573 220.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. AMRUTHESH C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI. DASEGOWDA S/O MOODLIGIRI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. SWAMY GOWDA S/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶16

SMT. SHARADA W/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:926 RSA No. 498 of 2022

¶19

MS. ASHWINI D/O LATE MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶20

MS. USHA D/O LATE MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶21

MS. KAVYA D/O LATE MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶22

RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF A GUDUGANAHALLI, SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK - 573 220.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PRITHVIRAJ B N., ADVOCATE FOR R2, 5, 6 & 7; R1, 3 & 4 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED IN RA.NO.156/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.08.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO. 19/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:926 RSA No. 498 of 2022

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the sole appellant is said to be dead. Therefore, he cannot proceed with the case.

¶32

On perusal of the records, it reveals that the appellant (defendant No.2 before the trial Court) is said to be the wife of defendant No.1 against whom the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. The trial Court decreed the suit by granting a share to defendant No.1 and his children, but not granted any share to the appellant herein, who is the wife of defendant No.1. Hence, the appellant herein, who is the wife of defendant No.1, filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which also came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

¶33

In view of the death of appellant, who is the wife of defendant No.1, and the other respondents-defendants are the children of the appellant and they have already obtained the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:926 RSA No. 498 of 2022

¶36

decree in their favour and since there is no decree in favour of

¶37

the appellant, the present appellant is dead.

¶38