Karnataka High Court
Savitri vs Parameshwar Manja Naik on 26 August, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RFA No.917/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.917/2007 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SAVITRI,
W/O VENKATRAMAN NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURIST,
R/O DOMBE IN ATTIMURDU VILLAGE,
SIDDAPUR, KARWAR DISTRICRT-581 355.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI G. SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PARAMESHWAR MANJA NAIK,
Digitally signed
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
by J MAMATHA
J Location: RYOT, R/O KEREGADDE,
MAMATHA Dharwad
Date: 2022.08.27
10:17:45 +0530 SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355.
2. VENKATRAMAN MANJA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: RYOT,
R/O DOMBE IN ATTIMURDU VILLAGE,
SIDDAPUR, KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355.
-2-
RFA No.917/2007
3. MADEVI KOM NARAYAN NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O CHIBBANOORU, GODAVEMANE POST,
SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355.
4. SAVITRI,
W/O RAMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BALAKANDA, HASARGOD POST,
SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICTR-581 355.
5. SEETA,
W/O RAMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KEREGADDE, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355.
6. KAMALA TIMMA NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ATTIMURDU, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355.
7. PARVATI ISHWAR NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ATTIMURDU, SIDDAPUR TALUK,
KARWAR DISTRICT-581 355.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
R-2 TO R-7 ARE SERVED)
-3-
RFA No.917/2007
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.01.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.13/1999 ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE, SR.DN., SIRSI, DECREEING THE SUIT
OR DECLARATION, PARTITION AND POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
It was submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 before the Court on 26.10.2021, that FDP
No.3/2008 are concluded and in pursuance of the
execution petition, the suit schedule property has been
divided by metes and bounds and the parties to the suit
have already been put in possession of their respective
shares. The learned counsel submitted that nothing
survives for consideration in the present appeal. The
learned counsel for the appellant had sought two days
time to verify and submit regarding taking of possession
and till date, nothing is reported to the Court and the
appellant is also no more and the same is reported on
29.10.2021 and the learned counsel had sought two weeks
time to take necessary steps and this Court had granted
RFA No.917/2007
two weeks time on 01.07.2022 to take steps and till date,
no steps are taken.
2. Having taken note of FDP is concluded,
execution is filed, possession is delivered and the appellant
is no more and no steps are taken for bringing the legal
heirs from 29.10.2021, there is no point in again granting
time as sought by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
MD
