Karnataka High Court
Gouravva W/O Hanumappa Hulli vs Sushila W/O Kannappa Makarabbi on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14401
RSA No. 100454 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100454 OF 2021 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. GOURAVVA
W/O HANUMAPPA HULLI
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GUDI HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
2. RENUKAWWA
W/O HUCHCHAPPA,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BELUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
3. MANJAPPA
S/O HANUMAPPA HULLI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GUDI HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
Digitally signed DIST: HAVERI-581115.
by VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
NINGAPPA Date: ...APPELLANTS
PATTIHAL 2023.12.08
16:48:32
+0530
(BY SRI NAGANGOUDA R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUSHILA
W/O KANNAPPA MAKARABBI,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14401
RSA No. 100454 of 2021
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GUDI HONNATT, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
2. SIDDAVVA
W/O NINGAPPA MAGOD,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O GUDI HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
3. BASAPPA
S/O HANUMAPPA HULLI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GUDI HONNATTI, TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVERI-581115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
100 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.12.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.08/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, RANEBENNUR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2019, PASSED IN
O.S. NO.184/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
RANEBENNUR, PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION
AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14401
RSA No. 100454 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the respondents files a memo
stating that, the appellants and the respondents have
compromised the matter in FDP.No.16/2021 before the
concerned Court and the present appeal would not survive
for consideration. Along with memo, learned counsel for the
respondents has placed on record, the compromise petition
and compromise decree in FDP.No.16/2021.
2. The said memo is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has not
disputed about the compromise having been entered into
between the appellants and the respondents in
FDP.No.16/2021.
4. In light of the same, the present appeal would not
survive for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as
having become infructuous, since the appellants and the
respondents have settled the dispute in the final decree
proceedings.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14401
5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending
applications, if any, would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
EM, CT: UMD
