Nagarathnamma vs Renukaradhya
2022 Latest Caselaw 1887 Kant

                          1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

    REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.239 OF 2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1      NAGARATHNAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
       W/O LATE G SHIVARUDRAIAH

2      LEELAVATHY
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       D/O LATE G SHIVARUDRAIAH

3      RAVISHANKAR
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
       S/O LATE G SHIVARUDRAIAH

4      NATESH
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
       S/O LATE SHIVARUDRAIAH

       ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
       HOSAKERE VILLAGE
       HAGALVADI HOBLI
       GUBBI TALUK
       TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572216
                                     ... APPELLANTS

       (BY SRI. G S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.)
                           2

AND:

1      RENUKARADHYA
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
       S/O LATE PANCHAKSHARAIAH

2      P GANGADHAR
       AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
       S/O LATE PANCHASHARAIAH

3      JAGADEESH
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
       S/O LATE PANCHASHARAIAH

       1-3 ARE RESIDENTS OF
       KODIYALA, CHELUR HOBLI
       GUBBI TALUK
       TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 216

4      SIDDAGANGAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
       D/O LATE PANCHASHARAIAH
       HAMPASANDRA
       GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK
       CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 562 101

5      JAYAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
       D/O LATE PANCHASHARAIAH
       KALLAHALLI
       HUNASURU TALUK
       MYSOORU DISTRICT 571 105

6      SHANTHAMMA
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
       D/O LATE PANCHASHARAIAH
       DOLLENAHALLI
       MAGADI TALUK
                        3
     BENGALOORU RURAL 562 120

7    SHIVARUDRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     W/O LATE PANCHASHARAIAH
     KODIYALA
     CHELUR HOBLI
     GUBBI TALUK
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 216

8    LALITHAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
     W/O PUTTAIAH @ PUTTARUDRAIAH
     BIDARE, CHELUR HOBLI
     GUBBI TALUK
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 216

9    SUJATHA
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
     D/O PUTTAIAH @ PUTTARUDRAIAH
     DODDA AGRAHARA
     KALLAMBELLA HOBLI
     SIRA TALUK
     TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 137

10   ANUSUYA
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     D/O PUTTAIAH @ PUTTARUDRAIAH
     RESIDING AT KYATHSANDRA
     TUMKUR TALUK 572 101

11   RUDRAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
     D/O PUTTAIAH @ PUTTARUDRAIAH
     RESIDING AT
     PAVAGADA TALUK 561 202

12   DRAKSHAYANAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
                         4
     D/O PUTTAIAH @ PUTTARUDRAIAH
     RESIDING AT BIDARE VILLAGE
     CHELLUR HOBLI
     GUBBI TALUK
     TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 216

13   CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     S/O LATE RUDRAIAH
     RESIDING AT
     SEENAPPANAHALLI
     HEBBUR HOBLI
     TUMKUR TALUK 572 101

14   SARVAMANGALAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     D/O LATE RUDRAMMA
     W/O NANJUNDAIAH
     RESIDING AT
     ADALAGERE, NITTUR HOBLI
     GUBBI TALUK

15   SHIVASHANKARAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
     S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH

16   BASAVAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     S/O CHIKKANNA

17   GANGAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     W/O SHIVANNA

18   MUNISWAMAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     S/O KARIYANNA

     RESPONDENTS 15 TO 18 ARE RESIDING AT
                              5
      BIDARE VILLAGE, CHELLUR HOBLI
      GUBBI TALK. 572 216
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI H.K. ADV FOR R-16 & 17.
R-4, 8, & 9 ARE SERVED AND UNRERPRESENTED,)

     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 100 READ WITH
ORDER XLII OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DTD 23.8.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.203/2006 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, GUBBI
PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.03.2005 PASSED IN
O.S.No.345/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN), GUBBI.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

1. A memo is filed praying that this second appeal may

be dismissed as not pressed, since the parties have settled

their dispute out of the Court amicably.

2. In view of the said memo, the appeal is dismissed

as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE GH