Dismissed¶55

Smt. Mamtaz Begum v. Smt. Nusrath Azmath

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025RSA/691/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RSA No. 691 of 2016 (DEC); Justice K. Natarajan; decided 09.01.2025; second appeal dismissed as infructuous after appellants/plaintiffs sold the suit property to a third party (sale deed dated 25.03.2024) during pendency; underlying suit OS No.64/2004 (direction to defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of B Suit Schedule Property) dismissed 27.04.2013 by Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar; first appeal RA No.21/2013 dismissed 03.03.2016 by Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar; counsel for appellants permitted to retire; no substantive issue adjudicated, no precedent discussed, no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed as infructuous and learned counsel for the appellants was permitted to retire.

Smt. Mamtaz Begum Vs Smt. Nusrath Azmath — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed as infructuous and learned counsel for the appellants was permitted to retire.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the second appeal survives for adjudication, given that the appellants/plaintiffs sold the suit schedule property during its pendency and thereby lost interest over it.

¶55

Court's answer

The appellants/plaintiffs, having sold the suit property during the pendency of the appeal, lost interest over the property.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

Since the courts below had dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, the second appeal stood rendered infructuous and was accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶55

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the appellants was permitted to retire from the case, and the Office was directed to show the name of the appellants in the cause title.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2016 in RA No.21/2013 (Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar), whereby the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2013 in OS No.64/2004 (Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chamarajanagar) dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for a direction to the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the B Suit Schedule Property. During the pendency of the second appeal, the appellants sold the suit property to a third party on 25.03.2024 (sale deed produced by respondents' counsel), and counsel for the appellants filed a memo for retirement as the appellants showed no interest. Held: the appellants, having sold the property, lost interest over it, and the appeal, the suit having been dismissed by the courts below, was rendered infructuous; the appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous and counsel for the appellants was permitted to retire. (Coram: Hon'ble Mr Justice K. Natarajan; decided 09.01.2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:693 RSA No. 691 of 2016

¶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

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2016 (DEC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MAMTAZ BEGUM W/O LATE SRI C.N. NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. NASRUM BEGUM D/O. LATE. SRI. C N NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶11

R/AT AMEER JAN ROAD, GUNDLUPET CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 111.

¶12

SMT. C N NOOR FATHIMA D/O. LATE. SRI. C N NISAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. NOOR AYESHA D/O LATE SRI. C N NISAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶15

SRI NOOR AHMED S/O LATE SRI C.N. NISAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶16

SRI HABEEB-UR-REHAMAN S/O LATE SRI C.N. NISAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶17

SRI ABDULLA

¶18

S/O LATE SRI C.N. NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶19

SRI ABDUL RAHIM S/O LATE SRI C.N. NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:693 RSA No. 691 of 2016

¶22

SRI ATEEQ-UR- REHMAN S/O LATE SRI C.N. NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶23

SRI ABDUL RAZAK S/O LATE SRI C.N. NISSAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶24

APPELLATNS 1, 3 TO 10 ARE R/O DEVANGA, 2ND CROSS CHAMARAJANAGAR CITY CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 313.

¶25

…APPELLANTS

¶26

AND:

¶27

SMT. NUSRATH AZMATH D/O. LATE. SRI. ANWAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶28

SRI KURSHID ANWAR S/O LATE SRI ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

¶29

SRI KUMAR ANWAR S/O LATE. SRI. ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶30

SRI KAISAR ANWAR S/O LATE SRI ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶31

SRI KHIZAR ANWAR S/O LATE SRI ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶32

THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT ANWAR PASHA BUILDING GUNDLUPET CIRCLE, CHAMARAJANAGAR CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571 313.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:693 RSA No. 691 of 2016

¶35

SMT. ASMA APSAR W/O LATE SRI APSAR ANWAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶36

SRI YOUNUS ANWAR

¶37

W/O LATE SRI APSAR ANWAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶38

SRI ROMAAN ANWAR S/O LATE SRI APSAR ANWAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶39

SRI FARHAZ ANWAR

¶40

S/O LATE SRI APSAR ANWAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶41

RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE R/AT HANUMANTHANAGAR BANNIMANTAPA-C-LAYOUT MYSORE - 570 001.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SRI RAGHUNATH M.D, ADV., FOR C/R -8; SRI M.L.DAYANANDA KUMAR, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-6, R-7 & R-9)

¶44

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.03.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.21/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2013 PASSED IN OS NO.64/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM., CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶45

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

¶46

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

Memo for retirement is filed by learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that he has issued notice to the

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:693 RSA No. 691 of 2016

¶51

appellants seeking instructions, but the appellants have not shown any interest.

¶52

The suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking direction to the defendants to vacate and deliver vacant possession of B Suit Schedule Property came to be dismissed which was upheld by the First Appellate Court. Hence, appellants are before this Court in this Second Appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants are said to have sold the property to third party on 25.03.2024 and a copy of the Sale Deed is also produced by learned counsel for the respondents on the last date of hearing before this Court.

¶53

3. The submission of learned counsel is placed on record.

¶54

Learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to retire from the case. Office to show the name of appellants in the cause title.

¶55

In view of the appellants/plaintiffs having sold the property, they have lost interest over the property. Since the Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs, the present appeal has rendered infructuous. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶56

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶57

Smt. Mamtaz Begum v. Smt. Nusrath Azmath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamtaz Begum v. Smt. Nusrath Azmath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Manjunatha @ Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Anand Kumar Vs Sri. Chandrashekhar P M

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs Smt. Kempamma

Smt. Hajira Bi Vs Sri. M. Krishnamurthy Rao

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs Sri. Dasegowda

Hussaini Baig Alias Yasin Vs the State of Karnataka