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. Kalavathi Vs Smt. Susheelamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt. Kalavathi Vs Smt. SusheelammaSmt. Kalavathi v. Smt. Susheelamma

Dismissed¶66

Smt. Kalavathi v. Smt. Susheelamma

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026MFA/4769/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, MFA No. 4769 of 2021 (CPC), decided 18.06.2026 by Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against trial-court order dated 12.01.2021 in O.S.No. 26186/2020 (74th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, CCH-75) dismissing I.A.No.2/2020 of defendants 2 to 5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. Disposed of on the ground of amicable settlement between the parties, with the suit itself disposed of on 04.07.2022; appeal dismissed as infructuous. Respondents include the Divisional Officer, Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (R14), M/S LUBE Regional Office (R15), M/S HPCL Retail and Direct Sales Regional Office (R16). Relevant searches: infructuous appeal, settlement between parties, Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC application dismissed, O.S. 26186/2020, DoddaKallasandra/Kanakapura Main Road Bengaluru property dispute. No precedent discussed; no substantive point decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, concurred in by learned counsels for respondent Nos.14, 15 and 16, and the disposal of the suit itself on 04.07.2022, the present appeal does not survive for consideration and is dismissed as having become infructuous. ¶65

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the present appeal survives for consideration after the parties amicably settled the dispute and the suit itself was disposed of on 04.07.2022.

Court's answer

In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, concurred in by learned counsels for respondent Nos.14, 15 and 16, and the disposal of the suit itself on 04.07.2022, the present appeal does not survive for consideration and is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure – Miscellaneous First Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against order dated 12.01.2021 of the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75), passing order on I.A. No. II in O.S.No. 26186/2020 and dismissing I.A.No.2/2020 filed by defendants 2 to 5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC – during pendency of the appeal, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, and learned counsels for respondent Nos.14 (Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.), 15 and 16 agreed that the matter stood settled and that the suit itself was disposed of on 04.07.2022 – held, in view of the settlement and disposal of the suit, the appeal would not survive for consideration – appeal dismissed as having become infructuous.

A

NC: 2026:KHC:30336 MFA No. 4769 of 2021

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4769 OF 2021 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. LATE ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

SMT. CHAITHANYA S/O. LATE ASHWATH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 404 PERAMID APARTMENT NEAR SHARAVATHI KALYAN MANTAPAM DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062. …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30336 MFA No. 4769 of 2021

HC-KAR

SRI M. SRIKANTHA S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

SRI M. PRAKASH BABU S/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

SRI M. RAVI S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT R/AT FLAT NO.401 RAIN DROPS APARTMENT UMA MAHESHWARI LAYOUT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 062.

SRI ASHWATHYANARAYANA S/O. LATE CHIKKA KUNNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.48, 1^ST MAIN GANESHA TEMPLE ROAD DEAD END, NEAR BACHAPPA BUILDING DODDAKALLASANDRA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062.

SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

SMT. HEMALATHA D/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

SRI SREEDHAR S/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30336 MFA No. 4769 of 2021

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

SMT. MAMATHA D/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

SRI HEMANTH KUMAR S/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

NO.6 TO 10 ARE R/AT NO.304, FIRST FLOOR TEMPLE RESIDENCY KUVEMPU NAGAR DODDAKALLASANDRA - 560 062.

AND ALSO AT NO.70 KUNNAPPA BUILDING OPP. STATE BANK OF INDIA DODDAKALLASANDRA BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 062.

SMT. ASHWATHAMMA D/O. LATE CHIKKA KUNNAPPA @ LATE MUNIYAMMA W/O. KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO. 193/4, 1^ST CROSS ROAD 8^TH MAIN ROAD SANEGORUVANAHALLI AASVESWARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 079.

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

SRI M. DEVARJAU S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30336 MFA No. 4769 of 2021

HC-KAR

NO.12 AND 13 ARE R/AT DODDAKALLASANDRA VILLAGE NEAR ESHWARA TEMPLE KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 062.

THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. NAMMA METRO, 3^RD FLOOR BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027.

M/S LUBE REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 77, 2^ND FLOOR OLD MADRAS ROAD, NEAR TIN FACTORY, K.R. PURAM BENGALURU - 560 016.

M/S. HPCL RETAIL AND DIRECT SALES REGIONAL OFFICE SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD PAI LAYOUT, NEAR TIN FACTORY MAHADEVAPURA BENGALURU - 560 010.

SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. DAYANANDA SAGAR K.S. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.138, FF:1MDS RESIDENCY 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN RAMANJANEYA NAGARA CHIKKALLASANDRA BENGALURU - 560 061.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI N.S. VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE AND SRI VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R14;

MS. NAKSHA G. SAPPE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JIDESH KUMAR M.D., ADVOCATE FOR R15 AND R16)

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30336 MFA No. 4769 of 2021

HC-KAR

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2021 PASSED ON I.A. NO. II IN O.S.NO. 26186/2020 ON THE FILE OF 74TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-75), DISMISSING I.A.NO.2/2020 FILED BY DEFENDANTS 2 TO 5 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 OF CPC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.14 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.15 and 16 are present.

Learned counsel for appellants submits that the

parties have amicably settled the dispute.

The said submission is taken on record.

Learned counsels for respondent Nos.14, 15 and

16 are agreed with the fact that the matter has been

settled amicably and that the suit itself is disposed of on 04.07.2022.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:30336 MFA No. 4769 of 2021

HC-KAR

In view of the said submission, the present appeal

would not survive for consideration. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed as having become infructuous .

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

CPN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the present appeal survives for consideration after the parties amicably settled the dispute and the suit itself was disposed of on 04.07.2022.medium confidence¶60
The court held
In view of the amicable settlement between the parties, concurred in by learned counsels for respondent Nos.14, 15 and 16, and the disposal of the suit itself on 04.07.2022, the present appeal does not survive for consideration and is dismissed as having become infructuous.ratio¶65

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureOrder 43 Rule 1(r)¶50 Order XXXIX Rule 4¶50

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 12.01.2021 passed on I.A. No. II in O.S.No. 26186/2020, dismissing I.A.No.2/2020 filed by defendants 2 to 5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC¶50
74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75) · 12.01.2021
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No. 26186/2020 pending on the file of the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75)¶50
Prior proceeding
Defendants 2 to 5 filed I.A.No.2/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, which was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2021, giving rise to this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC¶50
Prior proceeding
Pending the appeal, the parties amicably settled the dispute and the suit itself was disposed of on 04.07.2022, as agreed by learned counsels for respondent Nos.14, 15 and 16¶60

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. LATE ASHWATH¶8
VISWANATHA SETTY V.
appellant
SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE ASHWATH¶9
VISWANATHA SETTY V.
appellant
SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. LATE ASHWATH¶10
VISWANATHA SETTY V.
appellant
SMT. CHAITHANYA S/O. LATE ASHWATH¶11
VISWANATHA SETTY V.
respondent
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIRAJU¶16
N.S. VISWANATHA
respondent
SRI M. SRIKANTHA S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU¶20
N.S. VISWANATHA
respondent
SRI M. PRAKASH BABU S/O LATE MUNIRAJU¶21
N.S. VISWANATHA
respondent
SRI M. RAVI S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU¶22
N.S. VISWANATHA
respondent
SRI ASHWATHYANARAYANA S/O. LATE CHIKKA KUNNAPPA¶24
respondent
SMT. HEMAVATHI D/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA¶25
respondent
SMT. HEMALATHA D/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA¶26
respondent
SRI SREEDHAR S/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA¶27
respondent
SMT. MAMATHA D/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA¶31
respondent
SRI HEMANTH KUMAR S/O. LATE AMMAYAMMA¶32
respondent
SMT. ASHWATHAMMA D/O. LATE CHIKKA KUNNAPPA @ LATE MUNIYAMMA W/O. KRISHNASWAMY¶35
respondent
SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIRAJU¶36
respondent
SRI M. DEVARJAU S/O. LATE MUNIRAJU¶37
respondent
THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.¶41
K. KRISHNA, VASANTHA
respondent
M/S LUBE REGIONAL OFFICE¶42
NAKSHA G. SAPPE, JIDESH KUMAR M.D.
respondent
M/S. HPCL RETAIL AND DIRECT SALES REGIONAL OFFICE¶43
NAKSHA G. SAPPE, JIDESH KUMAR M.D.
respondent
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. DAYANANDA SAGAR K.S.¶44

Coram

AI extract

PRADEEP SINGH YERURauthor¶52

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 18 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 25 Sept 2021
Case no.: MFA/4769/2021
CNR: KAHC010358222021
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Miscellaneous First Appeal (MFA)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Pradeep Singh Yerur

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt Girja
17 Jun 2026
Smt Lakshmamma Vs Smt. Radha
17 Jun 2026
Sri C Onkarappa Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation
17 Jun 2026
National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Kothwal Sheshayya Sherugar
18 Jun 2026
Shri Nanjundappa Vs Shri M Muniswamy
18 Jun 2026
Smt Kalavathi Vs Smt Susheelamma
18 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. Kalavathi v. Smt. Susheelamma, MFA/4769/2021 (KA), decided on 18 June 2026.

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 ProcedureOrder 43 Rule 1(r) · Order XXXIX Rule 4

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 12.01.2021 passed on I.A. No. II in O.S.No. 26186/2020, dismissing I.A.No.2/2020 filed by defendants 2 to 5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75) · 12.01.2021
Suit O.S.No. 26186/2020 pending on the file of the 74th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-75)
Defendants 2 to 5 filed I.A.No.2/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, which was dismissed by order dated 12.01.2021, giving rise to this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC

View full history

Bench / Coram

PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

Parties & counsel