Karnataka High Court
Sri Papanna vs Sri B P Nagaraja on 26 May, 2023
Bench: H T Prasad
-1-
RFA No. 664 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2013 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SRI PAPANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKA PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O BILEKAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-560076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NARAYANA REDDY M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI B P NAGARAJA
S/O LATE PERIYANNA
AGED 60 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by 2. SRI. LAKSHMINARYANA
DHANALAKSHMI S/O LATE PERIYANNA
MURTHY
AGED 56 YEARS.
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
3. CHINNAPPA
S/O CHIKKAPAPANNAA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5. SRI. MUNIYELLAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAPAPANNA
-2-
RFA No. 664 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
6. SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O LATE IMMAHIHALLI ABBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
7. SRI. RAJU
W/O LATE ABBAIAH IMMAHIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI. RAGHUPATHY
W/O LATE ABBAIAH IMMAHIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
9. SRI. SUDARSHANA
W/O LATE ABBAIAH IMMAHIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
10. SRI. SHEKARA
W/O LATE ABBAIAH IMMAHIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
11. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPP
AGED 56 YEARS
12. SMT. PUTTAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS.
13. SRI. MAHESHA
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED 30 YEARS
14. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE MUNIKRISHNAPPA
AGED 28 YEARS.
15. SRI. LOKESHA
S/O LATE R SRINIVAS
-3-
RFA No. 664 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
16. SMT. NIRMALAMMA
W/O LATE R SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
17. SRI. KUMARA
S/O LATE R. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
18. SRI. NAGESH
S/O LATE R. SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
19. SRI. R. NARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
20. SRI. R. GOPAL
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 10
15 TO 20 ARE R/O BILEKAHALLI VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE-76.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V R BALARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1,R3 TO R5:
AND R15 TO R20 :
SRI. R.S. RAVI, ADVOCATE R6, R8 TO R10:
NOTICE TO R11 SERVED
NOTICE TO R2, R7,R12 TO R14 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT:
V/O DATED: 18.10.2021)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED30.01.2013
PASSED IN OS NO. 877/1996 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND
PERPETUAL INJUNCTION.
-4-
RFA No. 664 of 2013
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
On 28.11.2022, the learned counsel for the appellant
had submitted that sole appellant is no more and he died
on 18.7.2022. Hence, this Court had granted two weeks
time to file appropriate application.
Till today, no application is filed to bring the legal
representatives of deceased appellant on record.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed as abated.
In view of dismissal of appeal, pending applications,
if any, do not survive for consideration and they are
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
