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.

Shanmukha Vs Smt. Shivamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Shanmukha Vs Smt. ShivammaShanmukha v. Smt. Shivamma

Disposed¶¶52

Shanmukha v. Smt. Shivamma

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026RFA/222/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Short disposal order, not a substantive adjudication. Karnataka HC DB (Anu Sivaraman & Tara Vitasta Ganju JJ., judgment per Anu Sivaraman J.) disposed of RFA No. 222 of 2025 (filed under S.96, Order XLI Rule 1 CPC) on 22.04.2026. Appellants Shanmukha and Sundra (children/LRs of Late N. Magesha, Defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 225/2002), represented by Sri. Kanishk Ravindra, had challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi, in O.S. No. 225/2002; respondents include LRs of Defendant No.2 (Late N. Balan), Plaintiff No.1 (Late N. Kashi), and other family members. Appeal disposed of because, on counsel's recorded submission, the final decree proceedings were concluded in 2021 and nothing survived for consideration. Useful for: infructuous first appeals against decrees after conclusion of final decree proceedings.

What did the court decide?

In view of the submission that the final decree proceedings have been concluded (in 2021), nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether anything survives for consideration in this Regular First Appeal now that the final decree proceedings arising from O.S. No. 225/2002 have been concluded.

Court's answer

In view of the submission that the final decree proceedings have been concluded (in 2021), nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench: Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju JJ.; oral judgment per Anu Sivaraman J.), decision dated 22.04.2026, in Regular First Appeal No. 222 of 2025 (PAR) under Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1 CPC. The appeal was filed by the children of Late N. Magesha (Defendant No.1 in O.S. No. 225/2002) seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 passed in O.S. No. 225/2002 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the final decree proceedings had been concluded in 2021. Holding that nothing further survived for consideration in the appeal, the court disposed of the appeal.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:21812-DB RFA No. 222 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 222 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SHANMUKHA S/O N.MAGESHA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 201.

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

SUNDRA, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE N.MAGESH, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, R/AT HULIYAR, BHADRAVATHI TALUK-577 201. (THE APPELLANTS ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE N. MAGESHA WHO IS THE DEFENDANT NO.1 IN O.S. NO.225/2002) …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. KANISHK RAVINDRA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O PILLAYYAR, D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 71 YEARS, R/AT HULLYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21812-DB RFA No. 222 of 2025

HC-KAR

BHADRAVATHI TQ - 577 201.

N.MANI S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 69 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 201.

SMT.NAVANEETHAMMA, D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 201.

ANANDI S/O LATE N.MAGESHA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 201. (LR OF LATE N.MAGESHA WHO IS THE DEFENDANT NO.1 IN O.S. NO.225/2002)

ARUNA.B S/O LATE N BALAN, AGED 30 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR VILLAGE, BHARAVATHI TQ-577 201. (LR OF LATE N.BALAN WHO IS THE DEFENDANT NO.2 IN O.S. NO. 225/2002)

RAMYA W/O SUDAR RAJ, D/O LATE N BALALN, AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 201. (LR OF LATE N.BALAN WHO IS THE DEFENDANT NO.2 IN O.S.NO.225/2002)

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21812-DB RFA No. 222 of 2025

HC-KAR

7. BHUVANESHWARI

W/O LATE KASHI, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 201. (LR OF LATE N.KASHI WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 IN O.S.NO.225/2002)

GOPAL S/O LATE KASHI, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHARAVATHI TQ-577 201. (LR OF LATE N.KASHI WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 IN O.S.NO.225/2002)

VENKATESH S/O LATE KASHI, AGED 45 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHARAVATHI TQ-577 201. (LR OF LATE N.KASHI WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 IN O.S.NO.225/2002)

10. SRINIVAS

S/O LATE KASHI, AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR, RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 501. (LR OF LATE N.KASHI WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF NO.1 IN O.S.NO.225/2002).

MALLIKA D/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT HULIYAR,

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:21812-DB RFA No. 222 of 2025

HC-KAR

RAMANAKOPPA VILLAGE, BHARAVATHI TQ-577 201.

AMUDHA

D/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT MEENUGARA STREET, BHADRAVATHI TQ-577 201.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2011 PASSED O.S.NO.225/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHADRAVATHI AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.S

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

The learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits

that the final decree proceedings have been concluded in the year 2021.

In the above view of the matter, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:21812-DB RFA No. 222 of 2025

HC-KAR

3. The appeal is disposed of.

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether anything survives for consideration in this Regular First Appeal now that the final decree proceedings arising from O.S. No. 225/2002 have been concluded.medium confidence¶¶48
The court held
In view of the submission that the final decree proceedings have been concluded (in 2021), nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal.ratio¶¶48

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure 1908Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1¶¶41

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 in O.S. No. 225/2002, which the appellants sought to set aside in this Regular First Appeal.¶¶41
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi · 22.02.2011
Prior proceeding
O.S. No. 225/2002 ended in judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi; the present RFA under Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1 CPC was directed against that judgment and decree.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted (as recorded by the court) that the final decree proceedings arising from the suit had been concluded in 2021.¶¶47

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
SHANMUKHA S/O N.MAGESHA (Appellant No.1)¶¶11
Sri. Kanishk Ravindra
appellant
SUNDRA S/O LATE N.MAGESH (Appellant No.2)¶¶13
Sri. Kanishk Ravindra
respondent
SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O PILLAYYAR (Respondent No.1)¶¶16
respondent
N.MANI S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY (Respondent No.2)¶¶20
respondent
SMT.NAVANEETHAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY (Respondent No.3)¶¶21
respondent
ANANDI S/O LATE N.MAGESHA (Respondent No.4)¶¶22
respondent
ARUNA.B S/O LATE N BALAN (Respondent No.5)¶¶23
respondent
RAMYA W/O SUDAR RAJ (Respondent No.6)¶¶24
respondent
BHUVANESHWARI W/O LATE KASHI (Respondent No.7)¶¶28
respondent
GOPAL S/O LATE KASHI (Respondent No.8)¶¶29
respondent
VENKATESH S/O LATE KASHI (Respondent No.9)¶¶30
respondent
SRINIVAS S/O LATE KASHI (Respondent No.10)¶¶32
respondent
MALLIKA D/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA (Respondent No.11)¶¶33
respondent
AMUDHA D/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA (Respondent No.12)¶¶39

Coram

AI extract

Anu Sivaramanauthor¶¶45
Tara Vitasta Ganjumember¶¶43

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 22 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 25 Jan 2025
Case no.: RFA/222/2025
CNR: KAHC010054482025
Bench: Anu Sivaraman Tara Vitasta Ganju
Disposal: DISPOSED
Case type: Regular First Appeal (PAR)

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

Mrs K S Nirmala Vs Mr Neelakantaiah M R
21 Apr 2026
Smt. Madhu Bai Vs the Chief Commissioner
21 Apr 2026
Sri S Manjappa Vs Smt K S Sumitramma
21 Apr 2026
Albert Deepak Vs Smt Sharni Joseph Rufena
22 Apr 2026
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Vs M/S Kirloskar Aaf Limited
22 Apr 2026
Smt Vedha a Vs Sri Paras Mal Jain
22 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Shanmukha v. Smt. Shivamma, RFA/222/2025 (KA), decided on 22 April 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 Procedure 1908Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 in O.S. No. 225/2002, which the appellants sought to set aside in this Regular First Appeal.Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi · 22.02.2011
O.S. No. 225/2002 ended in judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravathi; the present RFA under Section 96, Order XLI Rule 1 CPC was directed against that judgment and decree.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted (as recorded by the court) that the final decree proceedings arising from the suit had been concluded in 2021.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Anu Sivaraman and Tara Vitasta Ganju

Parties & counsel