Smt Hemavathi vs Smt Saraswathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 3021 Kant

                           1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

              R.S.A.NO.296 OF 2015 (INJ)

BETWEEN:

SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O ANNI DEVADIGA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT VENKAPPA MAISTRY COMPOUND
NANTOOR PADAVU
KULSHEKAR POST
MANGALORE - 571 241.
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWARA R.P FOR
    SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT. SARASWATHI

2.     HARISHA

3.     SHIVARAMA

4.     DINESHA

5.     CHANDRAHASA

       NO.1 IS THE WIDOW AND
       NOS.2 TO 5 ARE CHILDREN
       OF NARAYANA, ALL ARE R/A
       C/O BOOBA DEVADIGA
       BOLLJE TUTHU
       POST VENOOR
                                 2




     BELTHANGADY TALUK - 571 240.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K. ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)

     THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND
DECREE DATED 13.11.2014 PASSED IN R.A. NO. 108/2005
ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, MANGALORE, D.K. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING     THE    JUDGEMENT     AND     DECREE
DATED:06.07.2005 PASSED IN OS.NO.658/1999 ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIOAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
MANGALORE.

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

                         JUDGMENT

Present regular second appeal is filed by the

appellant/plaintiff aggrieved by the concurrent findings

rendered in O.S.No.658/1999 dated 06.07.2005 on the

file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mangalore and

in R.A.No.108/2008 dated 13.11.2014 on the file of II

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina

Kannada, in and by which, suit for permanent

injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff were

dismissed.

2. Heard Sri. Madhukeshwara, learned counsel

for Sri. Sachin B.S for appellant and Sri. K.

Anandarama, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the

respondents/defendants submits that even prior to

filing of the aforesaid suit the respondents/defendants

had initiated a suit for partition in which the

appellant/plaintiff here was also a party. That the said

suit was decreed and same has been confirmed in

R.A.No.12/2011 as well as in RSA No.1532/2016. Final

Decree Proceedings in FDP No.38/2016 was initiated,

Commissioner report is filed, property has been divided

and parties have been allotted their respective shares

and execution is completed.

      4.     Learned           counsel           for          the

respondents/defendants          files    a      memo     dated

22.02.2022 along with a copy of the judgment passed

in RSA No.1532/2016, proceedings in FDP No.38/2016,

Commissioner's report and order sheet in execution

petition No.11/2020. Same is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff

does not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

In the aforesaid circumstances, nothing survives

for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly,

appeal is dismissed as same having become

infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RU