Shivakka W/O Chandrashekar ... vs Shanmukh S/O Veerabasappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 257 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

     REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5927 OF 2012 (PAR & POSS)


BETWEEN

1.     SHIVAKKA
       W/O CHANDRASHEKAR DEVAGIRI,
       AGE: 63 YEARS,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
       R/O: MALLIKARJUN NAGAR,
       SAVADATTI ROAD,
       DHARWAD-580001.

2.     MALLESHAPPA
       S/O VEERABASAPPA ARAGANNAVAR,
       AGE: 60 YEARS,
       OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O: MANGALWARPETH,
       DHARWAD-580001.

                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.  SHANMUKH
    S/O VEERABASAPPA ARAGNNAVAR,
    AGE: 50 YEARS,
    OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O: VIRKTAMATH ONI,
    DHARWAD-580001.
                            -2-




2.   MAHADEVI W/O JAGADISH KONGI,
     AGE: 41 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: MANDA ONI,
     HOSAYALLAPUR,
     DHARWAD-580001.

3.   RAJASHEKAR
     S/O VEERABASAPPA ARAGNNAVAR,
     AGE: 45 YEARS,
     OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: MANGALWAR PETH,
     DHARWAD-580001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI. ARUNA R. DESHAPANDE, ADV., FOR R1-R3)


     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF C.P.C.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.03.2012
PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., DHARWAD PARTLY ALLOWING
THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2009
AND THE DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.269/2008 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C.,
DHARWAD, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.


     THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -3-



                          JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for appellants filed a memo

intimating this Court that the appellants 1 and 1 are no

more. He submits that he has no instructions from the

legal heirs of deceased appellants.

Memo is taken on record.

Appeal is dismissed as abated.

Sd/-

JUDGE YAN