Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sri Munirasappa vs Muniraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 755 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 755 Kant
Judgement Date : 17 January, 2022

Karnataka High Court
Sri Munirasappa vs Muniraju on 17 January, 2022
Bench: M.I.Arun
                        1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                     BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

            RFA NO.1085 OF 2016 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MUNIRASAPPA,
S/O LATE KODALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 561 103.
                                     ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

AND:

MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE CHINAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1.   SMT. VANAJAKSHI,
     W/O LATE MUNIRAJ,
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

2.   SMT. GAYATHRI,
     D/O LATE MUNIRAJ,
     W/O GOVINDARAJU,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

3.   SRI. ANIL KUMAR,
     S/O LATE MUNIRAJ,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
                         2


4.   SRI. VINOD KUMAR,
     S/O LATE MUNIRAJ,
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE
     RESIDING AT NO.35, 12TH CROSS,
     BELLANDUR VILLAGE & MAIN ROAD,
     VARTHUR HOBLI,
     BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
     BANGALORE - 561 103.

5.   SMT. KODIHALLI MUNIYAMMA
     @ AKKAMMA,
     W/O LATE KODLAPPA @ MUNISWAMAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

6.   MUNISWAMAPPA,
     S/O LATE KODALAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 ARE
     R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
     VARTHUR HOBLI,
     BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
     BANGALORE - 561 103.

RAMAIAH,
S/O LATE KODALAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

7.   SMT. CHINNATHAYAMMA,
     S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

8.   SRINIVASA,
     S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

9.   MANJUNATHA,
     S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
                        3


10. UMESH,
    S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

   RESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 ARE
   R/AT NO.546, 3RD CROSS,
   BEHIND BBMP OFFICE,
   BELLANDUR,
   BANGALORE - 561 103.

11. SMT. YELLAMMA,
    D/O LATE KODALLAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
    R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
    VARTHUR HOBLI,
    BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
    BANGALORE.

12. SMT. AMMAYAMMA,
    D/O LATE KODALLAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
    R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI,
    VARTHUR HOBLI,
    BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
    BANGALORE - 561 103.

13. KONDARAMA,
    M/S MANJULA ENTERPRISES,
    SHOP NO.4, KORAMANGALA,
    BDA COMPLEX,
    BANGALORE - 34.

14. ARUN ADHAVANI,
    S/O NOT KNOWN,
    C/O KODIHALLI MUNIYAMMA,
    R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
    VARTHUR HOBLI,
    BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
    AND ASLO AT BORTEN CENTRE,
    ROOM NO.413, 4TH FLOOR,
    M.G.ROAD,
    BANGALORE - 01.
                        4


15. SMT. MUNIRATHANAMMA,
    W/O MUNIARASAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
    R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
    VARTHUR HOBLI,
    BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
    BANGALORE - 561 103.

DODDABBAIAH,
S/O LATE CHINAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

16. SMT. JYOTHAMMA,
    W/O LATE DODDABBAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

17. SMT. SHOBHA,
    D/O LATE DODDABBAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

18. ARUN,
    S/O LATE DODDABAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

   ALL ARE R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
   VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
   BANGALORE - 561 103.
                                ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
30.03.2016 PASSED IN OS. NO. 6515/1995 ON THE
FILE OF I ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION.

     THIS RFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              5


                          JUDGMENT

The appeal is of the year 2016. The appellant

has not filed proof of valuation for the purpose of

jurisdiction in view of Section 5(1) of Karnataka

High Court Act. In spite of granting sufficient time,

the same has not been carried out. It is noticed

that counsel for the appellant has been

continuously absent. Even today, there is no

representation on behalf of the appellant. It

appears that the appellant is not interested in

prosecuting the case. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AG

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter