Rajashekaraiah Vs Shankarappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rajashekaraiah Vs Shankarappa — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All three regular second appeals (RSA Nos.1821/2017, 1822/2017 and 1823/2017) dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for to the appellants to institute fresh suits and to pursue proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru.

Issue for consideration

Whether the memos filed by counsel/appellants praying that RSA Nos.1821/2017, 1822/2017 and 1823/2017 be dismissed as withdrawn - with liberty to institute fresh suits and to pursue proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru - should be accepted and the appeals disposed of accordingly.

Court's answer

Placing the memos on record, the Court dismissed RSA No.1821/2017, RSA No.1822/2017 and RSA No.1823/2017 as withdrawn.

Ratio / Principle

The dismissal as withdrawn was granted with liberty as prayed for in the memos, i.e., liberty to institute fresh suits and to pursue proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (V Srishananda J.), 22 June 2026 - Three connected regular second appeals, RSA Nos.1821, 1822 and 1823 of 2017, arising from the common-date judgments and decrees of 22.04.2017 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur in R.A.No.14/2013 (which had allowed the first appeal and set aside the decree of 07.11.2013 in O.S.No.176/2008), R.A.No.44/2010 (allowed the first appeal, set aside the decree of 08.07.2010 in O.S.No.174/2008) and R.A.No.38/2010 (dismissed the first appeal, confirming the decree of 03.07.2010 in O.S.No.175/2008), were disposed of on the appellants' withdrawal memos. Counsel for the appellants filed signed memos praying that the appeals be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh suits and to pursue proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru. In RSA No.1822/2017 the sole appellant, Smt. Lakshmamma, had died during pendency on 23.01.2024, leaving her daughter Gangamma and son Basavarajappa as legal heirs; her son Shivanna had predeceased her on 10.10.1993, and his legal representatives Pradeep M.S and Naveen M.S (appellants in RSA No.1823/2017) were noted as entitled to represent his estate. Placing the memos on record, the Court dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No precedent was cited or considered; no substantive rights were adjudicated.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgments and decrees all dated 22.04.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur: in R.A.No.14/2013 allowing the first appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013 in O.S.No.176/2008 (under challenge in RSA No.1821/2017); in R.A.No.44/2010 allowing the first appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2010 in O.S.No.174/2008 (under challenge in RSA No.1822/2017); and in R.A.No.38/2010 dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2010 in O.S.No.175/2008 (under challenge in RSA No.1823/2017).¶40
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur · 22.04.2017
Prior proceeding
Trial court judgment and decree dated 07.11.2013 in O.S.No.176/2008 (Additional Civil Judge, Tiptur), reversed in R.A.No.14/2013 - the decree under challenge in RSA No.1821/2017.¶98
Prior proceeding
Trial court judgment and decree dated 08.07.2010 in O.S.No.174/2008 (Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Tiptur), set aside in R.A.No.44/2010 - the decree under challenge in RSA No.1822/2017.¶64
Prior proceeding
Trial court judgment and decree dated 03.07.2010 in O.S.No.175/2008 (Principal Civil Judge, Tiptur), confirmed in R.A.No.38/2010 - the decree under challenge in RSA No.1823/2017.¶88
Prior proceeding
Death of the sole appellant (Smt. Lakshmamma) in RSA No.1822/2017 during pendency on 23.01.2024, leaving legal heirs - daughter Smt. Gangamma and son Basavarajappa.¶106
Prior proceeding
Predecease of the appellant's son Shivanna on 10.10.1993.¶106
Prior proceeding
Legal representatives of the predeceased son Shivanna identified as Pradeep M.S and Naveen M.S, entitled to represent his estate (they are the appellants in RSA No.1823/2017).¶110
Prior proceeding
Memo in RSA No.1822/2017 signed by counsel for the appellant, the appellant's daughter Gangamma and grandchildren Pradeep S. and Naveen M.S.¶102
Prior proceeding
Memos filed in all three appeals praying that they be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to institute fresh suits and to pursue proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru.¶98
Prior proceeding
Order dated 01.03.2023: notice to respondents No.2 and No.3 in RSA No.1821/2017 held sufficient.¶37
Prior proceeding
Order dated 01.06.2026: notice to respondents No.3, No.5 and No.6 dispensed with.¶39