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.

The Archdiocese of Bangalore Vs Smt Parveen Taj — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
The Archdiocese of Bangalore Vs Smt Parveen TajThe Archdiocese of Bangalore v. Smt Parveen Taj

Dismissed¶¶29-31

The Archdiocese of Bangalore v. Smt Parveen Taj

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026RSA/1848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; RSA No. 1848 of 2023; decided 21.04.2026 by Pradeep Singh Yerur J. Appellant: The Archdiocese of Bangalore (public religious charitable trust; sole trustee Rt. Rev Dr. Peter Machado, Archbishop of Bangalore; SPA holder Ms. Maria Shathi; advocate Sri Joseph Anil Kumar A.). Respondent: Smt. Parveen Taj. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.104/2013 (dated 10.01.2019, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapura) and the judgment in R.A.No.164/2019 (dated 15.02.2023, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura) concerning Shop No.9, Shopping Complex of St. Francis Xavier Church, Chikkaballapura. At the orders stage, counsel filed a memo of withdrawal seeking liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration and possession; appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought, subject to the law of limitation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought in the memo (to file a fresh suit for declaration and possession before the jurisdictional court), subject to the law of limitation. ¶¶29-31

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as sought in the memo (to file a fresh suit for declaration and possession before the jurisdictional court), subject to the law of limitation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by the Archdiocese of Bangalore (a public religious charitable trust, through its sole trustee the Archbishop of Bangalore, by SPA holder) against the judgments in O.S.No.104/2013 (I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkaballapura, dated 10.01.2019) and R.A.No.164/2019 (II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, dated 15.02.2023), relating to the respondent's business at Shop No.9, Shopping Complex of St. Francis Xavier Church, Chikkaballapura. When the appeal came on for orders, learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration and possession before the jurisdictional court. The High Court placed the memo on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty as sought, subject to the law of limitation. No issue on merits was framed or decided.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:21620 RSA No. 1848 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1848 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BANGALORE A PUBLIC RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ARCHBISHOPS HOUSE NO.45 MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN BANGALORE - 560 046.

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BY ITS SOLE TRUSTEE RT. REV DR. PETER MACHADO ARCHBISHOP OF BANGALORE HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS DULY AUTHORISED BY SPA HOLDER MS. MARIA SHATHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS D/O. MONY AROCKISWAMY AT NO. 211, 8^TH CROSS PILLANNA GARDEN ST. THOMAS TOWN POST BANGALORE - 560 084.

(BY SRI JOSEPH ANIL KUMAR A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

&APPELLANT

SMT. PARVEEN TAJ W/O. SRI K. NISAMUDDIEN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT SHOP NO.9, SHOPPING COMPLEX OF ST. FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH M.G.ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. &RESPONDENT

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:21620 RSA No. 1848 of 2023

HC-KAR

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.104/2013 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for appellant files a memo seeking withdrawal of this appeal, which reads as under:

"The Appellant in the above case humbly submits that appellant had filed RSA in regard to set aside the Judgement and Decree passed by the I additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at chikkaballapura in O.S.No.104/2013, Dated 10/10/2019 and Set aside the Judgement in Regular Appeal passed by II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura dated 15/02/2023 in R.A. No.164/2019 and to direct the respondent to vacate the schedule property and handover the vacant possession to the appellants.

Hence, filing memo to withdraw the above Appeal with a liberty to file fresh suit for Declaration and Possession before the Jurisdiction Court. Same

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:21620 RSA No. 1848 of 2023

HC-KAR

may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity."

Placing the memo on record, the appeal is

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as sought for is

granted, subject to the law of limitation.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

CPN

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 100¶¶18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment in Regular Appeal No.164/2019 dated 15/02/2023 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sought to be set aside in this second appeal along with the judgment and decree in O.S.No.104/2013.¶¶23
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura · 15/02/2023
Prior proceeding
O.S.No.104/2013 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura; judgment and decree dated 10.01.2019 as recited in the cause title (the withdrawal memo recites the date as 10/10/2019); decree under challenge in this second appeal.¶¶18

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
The Archdiocese of Bangalore, a public religious charitable trust, rep. by its sole trustee Rt. Rev Dr. Peter Machado, Archbishop of Bangalore, through SPA holder Ms. Maria Shathi¶¶8
Sri Joseph Anil Kumar A.
respondent
Smt. Parveen Taj¶¶14

Coram

AI extract

Pradeep Singh Yerurauthor¶¶20

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 21 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 16 Oct 2023
Case no.: RSA/1848/2023
CNR: KAHC010550572023
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: RSA

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Pradeep Singh Yerur

M M Thammaiah @ Kirana Vs the State of Karnataka
17 Apr 2026
Sri H P Lakshmana Vs Sri Basappa Since Deceased Rep by His Lrs
16 Apr 2026
Karnataka Housing Board Vs Sri Basappa Since Deceased Rep by His Lrs
16 Apr 2026
Sri P C Shashendra Vs Sri P C Balakrishna
21 Apr 2026
Smt. K L Janaki Vs Chikkaiah
21 Apr 2026
B. Chalapthi Vs State by Devaraja Ps (Mysore)
21 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

The Archdiocese of Bangalore v. Smt Parveen Taj, RSA/1848/2023 (KA), decided on 21 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 ProcedureSection 100

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Judgment in Regular Appeal No.164/2019 dated 15/02/2023 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, sought to be set aside in this second appeal along with the judgment and decree in O.S.No.104/2013.II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura · 15/02/2023
O.S.No.104/2013 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura; judgment and decree dated 10.01.2019 as recited in the cause title (the withdrawal memo recites the date as 10/10/2019); decree under challenge in this second appeal.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Pradeep Singh Yerur

Parties & counsel