Dismissed¶31

Smt. Arasamma v. Smt. Lakshmi

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2026RFA/173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, RFA No. 173/2021 (INJ), Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J., decided 18.06.2026. Appeal against decree for perpetual injunction dated 05.10.2013 in O.S.No.2761/2008 (VIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru); appeal filed under Sec. 96 CPC; dismissed as not pressed on counsel's memo dated 20.02.2026 after shares were fixed in RFA.No.729/2008 (order dated 09.01.2026) arising from partition suit O.S.No.7795/2002; appeal held infructuous. Keywords: perpetual injunction; not pressed; infructuous appeal; partition; equal share; Sec. 96 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Accepting the memorandum dated 20.02.2026 filed by learned counsel for the appellants, this Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed, the appeal having become infructuous after the parties' shares were determined in RFA.No.729/2008 by order dated 09.01.2026. ¶31

Smt. Arasamma Vs Smt. Lakshmi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:30652 RFA No. 173 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 173 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. ARASAMMA D/O LATE T NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.44, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, A K COLONY 7^TH BLOCK, YEDIYUR JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 82

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally 1. SMT. LAKSHMI signed by W/O LATE VENKATESH THEJAS KUMAR N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, Location: R/AT NO.44, 2ND FLOOR, HIGH COURT OF 4^TH CROSS, A K COLONY, KARNATAKA 7^TH BLOCK, YEDIYUR JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 82

¶13

SMT. GALAMMA D/O LATE T NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3^RD CROSS, V V R STREET

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30652 RFA No. 173 of 2021

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

G S S SCHOOL ROAD GANAPATHIPURA

¶17

BANGALORE - 560 062

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.10.2013 PASSED IN OS.NO.2761/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo dated 20.02.2026, which reads as under:

¶24

MEMO

¶25

"The undersigned counsel for the appellant respectively pays that the one Venkatesh who is son - legal heirs of T.Nagappa has filed the suit for partition and separate possession against appellant and other legal heirs of T.Nagappa in O.S.No.7795/2002, wherein the Hon'ble court has passed the exparte judgment and decree on 05.02.2003 before the XX Additional City Civil Judge at (CCH-32), Bengaluru, against which the appellant and

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:30652 RFA No. 173 of 2021

¶27

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

other legal heirs of the T.Nagappa challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.7795/2002 in RFA.No.729/2008 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the Regular First Appeal in RFA.No.729/2008 its order dated 09.01.2026 filed by the appellant and determined equal share to the appellant including other legal heirs.

¶30

In view of the above circumstances, the above appeal become infructuous and does not survive for consideration for the reasons that the share of appellant was already determined and decided between the same parties in the RFA.No.729/2008 its order dated 09.01.2026. The certified copy of the order dated 09.01.2026 and copy of the memorandum of appeal are herewith produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, this Hon'ble Court pleased to dismiss the above appeal as not pressed in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

¶32

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶33

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Smt. Arasamma v. Smt. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Arasamma v. Smt. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bengaluru Development Authority Vs B R Chandrashekar

Smt M Rathnamma Vs M Suresha

Smt N R Renumala Vs Sri M Dharmashekar

Sri Jayakumar Vs Sri M Govindaraj

Gowramma Dead by Lrs Vs Shakkavva @ Shakuntala

3M India Limited Vs Sri Manjappa Chatrad