Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 5394 Kant
Judgement Date : 3 December, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
R.S.A. NO.8/2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. C.R. RAJU,
S/O THE LATE C.K.RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.KT-136, 4TH CROSS,
MARI GOWDA BADAVANE,
MANDYA-571 401.
2. SRI NARASIMHA,
S/O LATE [email protected] SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.KT-14/105,
7TH CROSS, MARI GOWDA BADAVANE,
MANDYA-571 401.
3. SMT. LEELAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
4. SMT. SUMA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
5. SRI VINOD KUMAR K.S.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
6. SRI ARUN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
APPELLANT NO.3 IS THE WIFE
AND 4 TO 6 ARE THE CHILDREN OF
2
LATE SIDDAIAH @ SANNAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.KT-59, 7TH CROSS,
K.MARI GOWDA LAYOUT,
MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571 401.
7. SMT. MAMATHA H.C.,
W/O S. SIDDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H.MALLIGERE VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
PIN-571 401. ... APPELLANTS
[BY SRI JANARDHANA G., ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. SMT. KALAMMA,
D/O LATE THOTI ERA,
W/O LATE KARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 7TH CROSS,
MARIGOWDA EXTENSION,
MANDYA CITY-571 401.
2. SRI M.P.KANTHARAJU,
S/O S. PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUDAGANDUR VILLAGE,
KOTHATHI HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK-571 401. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. IRFANA NAZEER, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI MADHUKAR M. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2]
THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2019 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.57/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MANDYA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2017 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.824/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, MANDYA.
3
THIS R.S.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellants submits that he
intends to withdraw this appeal and approach the jurisdictional
civil Court seeking for appropriate reliefs, since the appellants
herein were not parties before the Trial Court in
O.S.No.824/2014.
2. Having regard to the said submission and
considering the memo filed by the learned counsel for the
appellants, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. All the
contentions and all the questions are left open.
3. The Registry is directed to return the certified copies
as well as the original of the documents, which are produced by
the learned counsel for the appellants along with the appeal
memo.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!