Karnataka High Court
Nabisab S/O. Fakrusab Hajibai vs Smt. Sarojini W/O.Mohanrao Dasaraddi on 14 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3553-DB
RFA No. 100196 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100196 OF 2021
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. NABISAB S/O. FAKRUSAB HAJIBAI
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUDDDAPUR TQ: MUDHOL.
2. SAIDUSAB S/O. RAMJANSAB INDIGNAL,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUDDDAPUR TQ: MUDHOL.
3. SIDDAPPA S/O. AVVAPPA GANJI @ JEERAGAL,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
by
R/O: MUDDAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL.
SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH
Date:
2024.02.22 4. RAMJANSAB S/O. FAKRUSAB HAJIBAI,
14:45:30 +0530
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MADDAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL.
5. RAJESAB S/O. RAHIMANSAB YADAHALLI,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUDDAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL.
6. RAJBI S/O. RAHIMANSAB YADAHALLI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MUDDAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3553-DB
RFA No. 100196 of 2021
AND:
1. SMT. SAROJINI W/O.MOHANRAO DASARADDI
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AND AGRICULTURE
R/O: HULAKOTI
TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582205
2. SMT. PREMLATA W/O. HANAMAREDDY KIRESUR,
AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AND AGRICULTURE
R/O: SHISHUVINHALLI, TQ: NAVALGUND-581126.
3. SMT. ASHWINI W/O. ANAND HONNAPAGOL,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: DEVANAL, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587204.
4. KRISHANA S/O. MALLAPPA NAIK,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YADAHALLI, TQ: MUDHOL-587117.
5. SMT. PARAKKA W/O. SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHIKKUR, TQ: MUDHOL-587122.
6. RAMANAGOUDA S/O. SANGANAGOUDA BADAGI
@ NYAMAGOUDAR, AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 'AKSHARA' NILAYA,
NEAR RAM-RAHIM DAIRY, MAKADWALA PLOT,
JAIJEN NAGAR, DHARWAD-580002.
7. LAXMANAGOUDA S/O. RAANGANAGOUDA BADAGI
@ NYAMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: 'AKSHARA' NILAYA,
NEAR RAM-RAHIM DAIRY, MAKADWALA PLOT,
JAIJEN NAGAR, DHARWAD-580002.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3553-DB
RFA No. 100196 of 2021
8. SMT. SUJATA W/O. RAMANAGOUDA BADAGI
@ NYAMAGOUDAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: 'AKSHARA' NILAYA,
NEAR RAM-RAHIM DAIRY,
MAKADWALA PLOT,
JAIJEN NAGAR,
DHARWAD-580002.
9. SMT. VIDYA
W/O. LAXMANGOUDA NYAMAGOUDA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: HEBBAL,
TQ: MUDHOL-587122.
10. THE SLAO.,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
SRI. N.L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2 AND R10;
R1 DECEASED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF
CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.35/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, MUDHOL, DECREEING THE SUIT
AND DISMISS THE SUIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3553-DB
RFA No. 100196 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.6 to 11
challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2021
passed in OS No.35/2018 passed by the Principle Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mudhol.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, respondent
No.1 died. In spite of granting sufficient opportunity,
appellants have not brought the legal representatives of
respondent No.1 on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hemareddi (dead) through legal
representatives v. Ramachandra Yallappa Hosamani
and others reported in (2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases
756 has held as under:
"14. Admittedly, steps were not taken for
substitution in regard to the second appellant. The
appeal, therefore, abated qua him as is declared
by Order XXII Rule 3(2). Though this is all that
the Order XXII Rule 2 declares, the principle has
evolved that in certain kinds of litigation, the
consequences of abatement qua a party are not
limited to the deceased party alone but it affects
all the other parties and the litigation itself. In
other words, a suit or an appeal as the case may
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3553-DB
be, would suffer an untimely demise by the
proceeding abating as a whole."
3. The appeal against the respondent No.1 is
abated. If the appeal is abated against one person, the
entire appeal abates, in view of the law laid down in the
case of Hemareddi (dead) through legal
representatives, referred supra. The said judgment is
aptly applicable to the present case in hand.
4. In view of the same, the entire appeal is
dismissed as abated.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
