Sri Ramanaiah vs Sri Albert Vincent
2023 Latest Caselaw 9344 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramanaiah vs Sri Albert Vincent on 5 December, 2023

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                                         -1-
                                                       NC: 2023:KHC:44010
                                                     RFA No. 1858 of 2007
                                                 C/W RFA No. 1857 of 2007



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                       BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                    REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1858 OF 2007 (DEC)
                                        C/W
                      REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1857 OF 2007


              IN RFA NO.1858/2007
              BETWEEN:

                    SRI. RAMANAIAH,
                    S/O SRI. RAMAIAH,
                    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
                    R/AT NO.53, 11TH MAIN,
                    3RD CROSS, KALANAGAR MAIN,
                    KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
                    BANGALORE - 560 015.
                                                              ...APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by R   (APPELLANT ABSENT)
MANJUNATHA
Location:     AND:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
              1.    SRI. ALBERT VINCENT,
                    S/O MR.HARRY HAYMO. J,
                    BY HIS MOTHER AND GENRAL POWER
                    OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
                    NO.342, MES RING ROAD,
                    BAHUBALINAGAR,
                    JALAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 013.
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2023:KHC:44010
                                      RFA No. 1858 of 2007
                                  C/W RFA No. 1857 of 2007



2.   SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR,
     MATTIKERE MAIN ROAD,
     YESHWANTHPURA,
     BANGALORE - 560 022.

3.   SRI. G. SAHADEVAN,
     S/O LATE GOPALA MUDALIYAR,
     MAJOR IN AGE,
     R/AT V.V. NILAYAM,
     KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
     JALAHALLI (WEST) POST,
     BANGALORE.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. R. PRABHAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT    AND   DECREE    DATED:02.08.2007   PASSED   IN
O.S.NO.10185/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
DECLARATION, POSSESSION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

IN RFA NO.1857/2007
BETWEEN:

     SRI. RAMANAIAH,
     S/O SRI. RAMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.53, 11TH MAIN,
     3RD CROSS, KALANAGAR MAIN,
     KAMMAGONDANAHALLI,
     BANGALORE - 560 015.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(APPELLANT ABSENT)
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC:44010
                                        RFA No. 1858 of 2007
                                    C/W RFA No. 1857 of 2007



AND:

1.   SRI. ALBERT VINCENT,
     S/O MR.HARRY HAYMO. J.,
     BY HIS MOTHER AND GENRAL POWER
     OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
     NO.342, MES RING ROAD,
     BAHUBALINAGAR,
     JALAHALLI,
     BANGALORE - 560 013.

2.   SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR,
     MATTIKERE MAIN ROAD,
     YESHWANTHPURA,
     BANGALORE - 560 022.

                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
    SRI. R. PRABHAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT     AND   DECREE    DATED:02.08.2007    PASSED   IN
O.S.NO.3434/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESS. JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

       THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This Court issued Court notice to the appellant by

way of abundant caution, in view of the fact that memo of

NC: 2023:KHC:44010

retirement filed by learned who represented the appellant

was accepted.

2. The Court notice has been returned with an

endorsement that the service is 'insufficient' on account of

want of correct address.

3. Left with no other alternative, appeal stands

dismissed for non prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KAV