Sri T Subramanyam vs Bapuji Co-Operative Housing ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3817 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:22359
                                                      RFA No. 655 of 2008




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                       BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

                  REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2008 (SP)

               BETWEEN:

               SRI T SUBRAMANYAM
               S/O. T GOPALA NAIDU
               HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
               NO.16, 20TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS,
               VIJAYANAGAR,
               BANGALORE - 560040.
                                                            ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. H R ANANTHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

                 BAPUJI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
                 NO.107-B, BAPUJINAGAR
Digitally signed
by               MYSORE ROAD,
DHANALAKSHMI BANGALORE - 560 026
MURTHY           REP BY ITS PRESIDENT.
Location: High                                            ...RESPONDENT
Court of
Karnataka        (BY SRI. MAHESHKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE)


                    THIS RFA IS FILED U/S.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE
               JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.2.2008 PASSED IN
               O.S.NO.9418/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL
               JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-23), DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR
               SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

                   THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
               COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC:22359
                                       RFA No. 655 of 2008




                      JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

sole appellant has died long back. So far, the legal

representatives have not been brought on record.

2. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as abated.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RD