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.

Sri Aurobinda Nanda Vs Sri Ganesh — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri Aurobinda Nanda Vs Sri GaneshSri Aurobinda Nanda v. Sri Ganesh

Dismissed¶38

Sri Aurobinda Nanda v. Sri Ganesh

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2026RFA/2088/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RFA No. 2088 of 2023 (DEC/POS), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 27.03.2026 (running-head neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:17649-DB) by Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ. Appeal under Sec. 96 CPC by Sri Aurobinda Nanda and Smt. Dharitri Nanda against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 in OS No.26313/2012 (LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, CCH-74) dismissing a suit for declaration, possession and injunction against Sri Ganesh, Sri Rudraswamy and M/s. Adarsh Developers. Counsel: Sudhakar G. V. for appellants; Chandrakala G. for R1, K.S. Venkataramana for R2, G. Chandrahasa for R3. Disposed of on a memo recording out-of-Court settlement by Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025: appeal dismissed as not pressed; refund of eligible Court fee to Appellant No.1 directed. No merits adjudicated; no precedent value.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not pressed on the memo recording out-of-Court settlement (Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025); Registry directed to refund the eligible Court fee to Appellant No.1 on proper identification. ¶38

Why is it important?

In view of the memo recording that the matter has been settled out of Court by executing a Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. ¶38

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as not pressed on the memo recording out-of-Court settlement (Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025); Registry directed to refund the eligible Court fee to Appellant No.1 on proper identification.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the memo recording that the matter has been settled out of Court by executing a Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

Key takeaways

The Registry is directed to refund the eligible Court fee to appellant No.1 on proper identification.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.; oral judgment per Anu Sivaraman, J.) — Regular First Appeal No.2088 of 2023 (DEC/POS) under Sec. 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 passed in OS No.26313/2012 by the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74), dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and injunction — during the pendency of the appeal a memo was filed stating that the matter had been settled out of Court by executing a Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025 — Held: the appeal is dismissed as not pressed; the Registry is directed to refund the eligible Court fee to Appellant No.1 on proper identification. No substantive issue was adjudicated and no ratio was enunciated.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17649-DB RFA No. 2088 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2088 OF 2023 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

SRI AUROBINDA NANDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O SRI B P NANDA

SMT. DHARITRI NANDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O ARUOBINDA NANDA

BOTH ARE RESIDING FLAT NO.177,

Digitally signed by RAKSHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

'RAINBOW RESIDENCY', JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE, CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 035

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G. V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI GANESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O SRI SRIRAMAPPA RESIDING AT NO.19, 'MANJUNATHA NILAYA',

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17649-DB RFA No. 2088 of 2023

HC-KAR

16^TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA POST, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 093.

SRI RUDRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE HUCEERAIAH, RESIDING AT KANCHUGAL, BANDEMUTT POST, MAGADI TALUK - 562120.

M/S. ADARSH DEVELOPERS NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/PARTNER

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA G., ADV. FOR R1; SRI. K.S.VENKATARAMANA, ADV. FOR C/R2; SRI. G. CHANDRAHASA, ADV. FOR R3)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.07.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.26313/2012 ON THE FILE OF LXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU., (CCH-74)., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND INJUNCTION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17649-DB RFA No. 2088 of 2023

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

A memo is filed seeking dismissal of the appeal as not

pressed stating that the matter has been settled out of Court by executing a Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025.

In the above view of the matter, the appeal is

dismissed as not pressed .

The Registry is directed to refund the eligible Court fee to appellant No.1 on proper identification.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

RAK,List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 96¶26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 in OS No.26313/2012 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and injunction¶26
LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) · 27.07.2023
Prior proceeding
Suit OS No.26313/2012 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023; the present Regular First Appeal under Sec. 96 CPC was filed against that judgment and decree.¶26
Prior proceeding
During the pendency of the appeal, a memo was filed seeking dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, stating that the matter had been settled out of Court by executing a Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025.¶36

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Sri Aurobinda Nanda¶9
Sudhakar G. V.
appellant
Smt. Dharitri Nanda¶10
Sudhakar G. V.
respondent
Sri Ganesh¶17
Chandrakala G.
respondent
Sri Rudraswamy¶22
K.S. Venkataramana
respondent
M/s. Adarsh Developers¶23
G. Chandrahasa

Coram

AI extract

Anu Sivaramanauthor¶34
Tara Vitasta Ganjumember¶29

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 27 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 27 Oct 2023
Case no.: RFA/2088/2023
CNR: KAHC010561912023
Bench: Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL (DEC/POS)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju

Sri Mathew Thomas Vs Dr. Rajneesh Goel
26 Mar 2026
Fazler Rahman Vs Mr Athmaram Shetty
26 Mar 2026
Sri. U N Prakash Kumar Vs Sri. N Jayaram
26 Mar 2026
Sri Pradeep Samantaray Vs Sri Ganesh
27 Mar 2026
Sri R Gurulingappa Vs Smt R Saroja
6 Apr 2026
Smt. Nandini v Vs State of Karnataka by Its Under Secretary
6 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri Aurobinda Nanda v. Sri Ganesh, RFA/2088/2023 (KA), decided on 27 March 2026.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 96

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023 in OS No.26313/2012 dismissing the suit for declaration, possession and injunctionLXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) · 27.07.2023
Suit OS No.26313/2012 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-74) ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 27.07.2023; the present Regular First Appeal under Sec. 96 CPC was filed against that judgment and decree.
During the pendency of the appeal, a memo was filed seeking dismissal of the appeal as not pressed, stating that the matter had been settled out of Court by executing a Cancellation Deed and Confirmation Deed dated 27.10.2025.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju

Parties & counsel