Dismissed

Balanna Since Dead by Lrs v. C. Ramachandra Reddy

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2026RSA/1371/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two regular second appeals arising from suits over property were withdrawn pursuant to joint memos recording an amicable settlement under which the respondents' legal representatives agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the appellants within two months. The High Court placed the memos on record and dismissed both appeals in terms of the memos.

What the court decided

AI extract

Balanna Since Dead by Lrs Vs C. Ramachandra Reddy — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1372 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ) C/W

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1371 OF 2013

¶8

IN RSA No. 1372/2013

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

BALANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRs.

¶11

SAKAMMA

¶12

A. W/O LATE BALANNA SINCE DEAD

¶13

Digitally signed by SHILPABAI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

B. B DASAPPA S/O LATE BALANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶15

C. B BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE BALANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOSAKERE GOLLARA-HATTI HAMLET OF HOSAKERE MEDIGESI HOBLI TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. R JAYAPRAKASH ., ADVOCATE SRI H V BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR A1(B& C))

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

GUNDAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRs.

¶22

THIPPERANGAMA

¶23

A. W/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶24

B. THIPPANNA S/O GUNDANNA

¶25

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶26

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOSAKERE, CHIKKA GOLLARAHATTI MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶27

MARIYANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRs

¶28

A. DASANNA S/O MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶29

B. BADACHITHAKKA W/O KARIYANNA

¶30

AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶31

C. BALAKKA D/O MARIYANNA

¶32

AGED ABOUT 47 YERS

¶33

GUNDAMMA W/O CHITTANNA

¶34

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶35

ALL ARE R/AT HOSKERE, GOLLARAHATTI HAMLET OF HOSKERE, MIDIGESHI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK-572132

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

(BY SRI. KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & B): V/O DATED 04.04.2016 NOTICE TO R2(A TO C) ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 11.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.156/2001 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD: 29.8.2001 PASSED IN OS.NO.304/84 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.

¶41

IN RSA NO. 1371/2013

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

BALANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶44

ERAMMA

¶45

A W/O LAE BALANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

¶46

B. SAKAMMA SINCE DAED BY LRs.

¶47

C. B DASAPPA S/O LATE BALANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶48

D. B BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE BALANNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOSAKERE GOLLARAHATTI HAMLET OF HOSAKERE MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK

¶49

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

HC-KAR

TUMKUR DISTRICT

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. R JAYAPRAKASH .,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVCOATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

C. RAMACHANDRA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶56

1A. JAYARAMA REDDY S/O C RAMACHANDRA REDDY

¶57

1B. VENKATARAMA REDDY S/O C RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF CHENENAHALLI, HOSAKERE CHIKKERE GOLLARAHATTI, MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK.

¶58

GUNDAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶59

THIPPERANGAMMA

¶60

A. W/O DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶61

B. THIPPANNA S/O GUNDANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HOSAKERE, CHIKKEREGOLLARAHATTI MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶62

MARIYANNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶63

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

DASANNA

¶66

A S/O MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶67

B. BADATHITHAKKA W/O MARIYANNA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶68

C. BALAKKA D/O MARIYANNA

¶69

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶70

GUNDAMMA W/O CHITTANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HOSAKERE, GOLLARAHATTI HAMLET OF HOSAKERE MEDIGESI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶71

...RESPONDENTS

¶72

(BY SRI. KASHYAP N NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A & B) V/O DATED:31.08.2016 APPEAL DISMISSED AGAINST R1(B) V/O DATED: 04.04.2016 NOTICE TO R3(A TO C) & 4 ARE DISPENSED WITH)

¶73

¶74

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶77

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶78

These regular second appeals are filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 passed in R.A. Nos.156 of 2001 and 161 of 2011 by the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri (‘ First Appellate Court ’ for short) allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2001 passed in O.S. Nos.304 of 1984 and 211 of 1984 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Madhugiri (‘ Trial Court ’ for short).

¶79

Today, learned counsel for the respondents has filed separate Memos dated 07.07.2026 in both appeals. In R.S.A. No.1371 of 2013, the memo is signed by appellant Nos.1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and respondent Nos.3 and 4, and, in R.S.A. No.1372 of 2013, the memo is signed by appellant Nos.1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶81

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

respondent Nos.1 and 2. Both memos read as

¶84

follows:

¶85

In RSA No.1371 of 2013 :

¶86

“ MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

¶87

The Appellants and Respondents most respectfully submits as follows:

¶88

1. It is submitted that the above mentioned Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, in R.A. No. 161/2001, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2001 passed by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) in O.S. No.211/1984.

¶89

2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above appeal, the Appellants and the contesting Respondent No. 3 and 4 have mutually discussed and arrived at amicable terms of settlement. As such, in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e., the LRs of Gundamma, having agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lakhs) to the Appellants,

¶90

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

within 2 (Two) months from the date of withdrawal of the above- mentioned Appeal, the Appellants no longer intend to prosecute the above appeal.

¶93

3. Accordingly, with an understanding that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) would be deposited before this Hon'ble Court within 2 (Two) months from the date of withdrawal of the above appeal, to be available for withdrawal by the Appellants, the present appeal is sought to be withdrawn. The Respondents have no objection to withdraw the said amount by the Appellants. Further, the Appellants shall undertake not to interfere with the possession of the Schedule Property.

¶94

WHEREFORE, the Appellants and Respondents humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to receive this instant memo on record and DISMISS the above appeal as withdrawn, in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶95

¶96

NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

In RSA No.1372 of 2013 :

¶99

“ MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL

¶100

The Appellants most respectfully submits as follows:

¶101

1. It is submitted that the abovementioned Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, in R.A. No. 156/2001, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2001 passed by the Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) in O.S. No. 304/1984.

¶102

2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the above appeal, the Appellants and the contesting Respondent No. 1 and 2 have mutually discussed and arrived at amicable terms of settlement. As such, in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e., the LRs of Gundamma, having agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) , to the Appellants, in RSA No. 1371 of 2013, the Appellants no longer intend to prosecute the above appeal.

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:35225 RSA No. 1372 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 1371 of 2013

¶104

10 -

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

3. Accordingly, with an understanding that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) would be deposited before this Hon'ble Court in R.S.A No. 1371 of 2013 as per the terms of the memo for withdrawal filed therein, the present appeal is sought to be withdrawn.

¶107

WHEREFORE, the Appellants humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to receive this instant memo on record and DISMISS the above appeal as withdrawn, in the interests of justice and equity.”

¶108

The memos are placed on record.

¶109

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the Memos.

¶110

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶111

¶112

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Balanna Since Dead by Lrs v. C. Ramachandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Balanna Since Dead by Lrs v. C. Ramachandra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Susheela S Vs the Chief Commissioner

B K Mohanty Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Sri. K. Mahabala Adiga Vs Smt. Priyadarshini

Balanna Since Dead by Lrs Vs Gundamma

Vikas Urs Vs the Commissioner

Gudasab Vs Principal Secretary to Govt