Mr Pathiraj vs Smt Sushilamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 270 Kant

                                              -1-
                                                        RFA No. 37 of 2013




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                                          BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
                        REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2013 (PAR)
                BETWEEN:

                        MR PATHIRAJ
                        S/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
                        RESIDING AT NO. 17/1
                        CHURCH STREET
                        5TH CROSS, OPP: PALLAVI HOTEL
                        LINGARAJAPURA
                        ST. THOMAS TOWN
                        BANGALORE-560084.

                        SINCE DECEASED BY LRS'

                1(a) SMT. AROKYA REKHA
                     D/O LATE PATHIRAJ
                     AGED ABOTU 40 YEAR

                1(b) SMT. KANIKAYA MARY
Digitally signed     D/O LATE. PATHIRAJ
by PANKAJA S
Location:            AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
HIGH COURT
OF               1(c)   MR. SEBASTIN
KARNATAKA
                        D/O LATE PATHIRAJ
                        AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

                1(d) MISS. NIRMALA RANI
                     D/O LATE PATHIRAJ
                     AGED ABOTU 30 YEARS
                              -2-
                                       RFA No. 37 of 2013




1(e) SMT. POULINA
     D/O LATE. PATHIRAJ
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

1(f)   MR. BALARAJ
       D/O LATE PATHIRAJ
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

       LRS' NO.1(a) TO 1(f) ARE R/AT
       NO.230, 4TH CROSS
       KANAKADASA LAYOUT
       LINGARAJPURAM, BANGALORE.

                                           ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. A RAMESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE
  FOR APPELLANTS NO.1(a) TO 1(f))
AND:

1.     SMT SUSHILAMMA
       W/O LATE MARIYAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
       RESIDING AT NO. 2/1
       SAZTHYAPPA COMPOUND
       ST. THOMAS TOWN
       LINGARAJAPURAM
       BANGALORE-560084.

2.     MR SHAMANNA
       S/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
       SINCE DECEASED BY LRS'

2(a)   SMT. RAJAMMA
       W/O LATE SHAMMANNA
       AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
                              -3-
                                   RFA No. 37 of 2013




2(b)   SMT. SUSAI MARY
       D/O LATE SHAMANNA
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2(c)   SRI. SAGAIRAJ
       S/O SHAMANNA
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

2(d)   SRI. ANTHONYSWAMY
       AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

2(e)   SRI. JUDE KUMAR
       S/O LATE SHAMANNA
       AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS



       (a) TO (e) ARE R/AT
       NO.195, SHAMANNA LAYOUT
       BANGALORE - 560 084.

3.     MRS PUSHPAMMA
       D/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

4.     MRS ANTHONIAMMA
       D/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

5.     MRS KANIKAMARY
       D/O LATE CHOWRAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

6.     SMT. SUSAI MARY
       D/O MR SHAMANNA

       RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE
       RESIDING AT
                             -4-
                                            RFA No. 37 of 2013




     NO. 17/1,CHURCH STREET
     5TH CROSS, OPP: PALLAVI HOTEL
     ST. THOMAS TOWN
     LINGARAJAPURA
     BANGALORE-560084.

                                              ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R A DEVANAND - ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI. K. N. KESHAVA - ADVOCATE FOR R-3
[R2(a TO f) AND R-4 TO R-6 SERVED)

     THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF

CPC, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT

10.02.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.16391/2003 ON THE FILE OF

XXVIII-ADDITIONAL   CITY   CIVIL   JUDGE,    BANGALORE,    BY

HOLDING THAT THE R-1/PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED 1/6TH

SHARE IN THE ITEM NOS.1 AND 3 OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES,

AND THE APPELLANT ALONE IS HAVING RIGHT AND TITILED

OVER THOSE ITEM NOS.1 AND 3 OF THE SUIT PROPERTIES.


     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo

seeking permission for withdrawal of the appeal.

RFA No. 37 of 2013

Accepting the memo, appeal is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Pending applications if any, do not survive for

consideration.

SD/-

JUDGE

sac*