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 N Krishnachari Vs Sri M S Raghuveer — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Sri N Krishnachari Vs Sri M S RaghuveerSri N Krishnachari v. Sri M S Raghuveer

Dismissed¶¶37

Sri N Krishnachari v. Sri M S Raghuveer

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026RSA/379/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA No.379 of 2022 (POS), High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; judge Pradeep Singh Yerur (oral judgment, 15.04.2026); appellant Sri N.Krishnachari (advocate Raghavendra V.) v. legal representatives of late M.S.Raghuveer (Rohini R, Revathi R, Rajendra R, Shankar R); filed under S.100 CPC against RA No.5/2019 (IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, decree 30.11.2021) confirming OS No.417/2007 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, decree 15.11.2018); appeal dismissed as withdrawn via memo citing compromise entered in RSA No.128/2024 (judgment of even date); no merits or holdings on the substantive dispute; keywords: withdrawal of appeal, memo withdrawal, compromise, dismissed as withdrawn, not pressed, second appeal, property suit (POS).

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn as not pressed (per the appellant's memo citing the compromise in RSA No.128/2024) and stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Why is it important?

This Court placed on record the memo filed by learned counsel for appellant — signed by both counsel and the appellant, who were physically present before the Court — seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed in view of the compromise entered between the parties in RSA No.128/2024, together with counsel's supporting submission. ¶¶36

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn as not pressed (per the appellant's memo citing the compromise in RSA No.128/2024) and stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant, as pressed through a memo citing the compromise entered between the parties in RSA No.128/2024.

Court's answer

On the strength of the memo and submission, this Court dismissed the regular second appeal as withdrawn; no substantive property issue was adjudicated.

Ratio / Principle

This Court placed on record the memo filed by learned counsel for appellant — signed by both counsel and the appellant, who were physically present before the Court — seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed in view of the compromise entered between the parties in RSA No.128/2024, together with counsel's supporting submission.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur J., oral judgment, 15 April 2026): Regular Second Appeal No.379 of 2022 (POS), filed under S.100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 of the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in RA No.5/2019, which had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 in OS No.417/2007 of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. Before any adjudication, learned counsel for appellant (Sri Raghavendra V.) filed a memo — signed by counsel and the appellant, both physically present before the Court — seeking withdrawal of the appeal as not pressed, in view of a compromise entered between the parties in RSA No.128/2024 (judgment of even date). The Court placed the memo and submission on record and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The underlying property dispute was not adjudicated in this judgment, so it carries no merits value beyond documenting the withdrawal.

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20612 RSA No. 379 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.379 OF 2022 (POS)

BETWEEN:

SRI N.KRISHNACHARI S/O LATE NANJUNDACHARI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO K-38 1^ST FLOOR, 12^TH CROSS LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 021

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI M.S.RAGHUVEER SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1(a) SMT.ROHINI R W/O.LATE M.S.RAGHUVEER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

1(b) SMT.REVATHI R D/O.LATE M.S.RAGHUVEER AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

1(c) SRI RAJENDRA R S/O.LATE M.S.RAGHUVEER AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

1(d) SRI.SHANKAR R S/O.LATE M.S.RAGHUVEER AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:20612 RSA No. 379 of 2022

HC-KAR

ALL ARE R/O NO.38, 1^ST MAIN 5^TH CROSS, SYG NAGAR MOODALPALYA BENGALURU - 560 072

… RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R-1(a) to (d) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2021 PASSED IN RA No.5/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2018 PASSED IN OS No.417/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT, 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. The memo is signed by learned counsel for appellant as well as appellant, who are physically present before the Court.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20612 RSA No. 379 of 2022

HC-KAR

The memo reads as under:

"The appellant herein humbly submits as follows:

That, in view of the compromise entered in RSA No.128/2024, the appellant herein may kindly be permitted to withdraw the above appeal as not pressed, in the interest of justice"

Learned counsel for appellant submits that in view

of the compromise entered into between the parties in RSA No. 128/2024 by a judgment of even number date, the appellant may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal as not pressed.

The memo and the submission of learned counsel for appellant are placed on record.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant, as pressed through a memo citing the compromise entered between the parties in RSA No.128/2024.¶¶28
The court held
On the strength of the memo and submission, this Court dismissed the regular second appeal as withdrawn; no substantive property issue was adjudicated.ratio¶¶37

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureSection 100¶¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 passed in RA No.5/2019 dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 passed in OS No.417/2007 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru) — the decision challenged in this RSA.¶¶24
IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 30.11.2021
Prior proceeding
Suit decided by judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 in OS No.417/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru; this decree was subsequently confirmed by the first appellate court.¶¶24
Prior proceeding
First appeal (RA No.5/2019) dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 of the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, confirming the trial-court decree of 15.11.2018 — the decision challenged in this RSA.¶¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Sri N.Krishnachari (s/o late Nanjundachari)¶¶7
Raghavendra V.
respondent
M.S.Raghuveer (since dead), respondent represented by his legal representatives¶¶11
respondent
Smt. Rohini R (legal representative 1(a), w/o late M.S.Raghuveer)¶¶14
respondent
Smt. Revathi R (legal representative 1(b), d/o late M.S.Raghuveer)¶¶15
respondent
Sri Rajendra R (legal representative 1(c), s/o late M.S.Raghuveer)¶¶16
respondent
Sri Shankar R (legal representative 1(d), s/o late M.S.Raghuveer)¶¶17

Coram

AI extract

Pradeep Singh Yerurauthor¶¶26

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 15 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 3 Mar 2022
Case no.: RSA/379/2022
CNR: KAHC010107532022
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Regular Second Appeal (POS)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Pradeep Singh Yerur

Smt Asha Shenoy Vs Sri Sannayya Shetty
10 Apr 2026
Mohammed Hussen Khan @ Katta Vs State of Karnataka
10 Apr 2026
Sri Gangappa v Vs Smt. Gangamma
10 Apr 2026
Sri.Nandish Kumar G K Vs the State of Karnataka
15 Apr 2026
Sri Krishna Purusha Vs Ananda Purusha
15 Apr 2026
Smt. M. Lakshmi Vs Sri.N. Krishnachari
15 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

Sri N Krishnachari v. Sri M S Raghuveer, RSA/379/2022 (KA), decided on 15 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 history3

Judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 passed in RA No.5/2019 dismissing the first appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 passed in OS No.417/2007 (III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru) — the decision challenged in this RSA.IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru · 30.11.2021
Suit decided by judgment and decree dated 15.11.2018 in OS No.417/2007 on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru; this decree was subsequently confirmed by the first appellate court.
First appeal (RA No.5/2019) dismissed by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2021 of the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, confirming the trial-court decree of 15.11.2018 — the decision challenged in this RSA.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Pradeep Singh Yerur

Parties & counsel