Karnataka High Court
Gowramma vs Channamma on 5 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36822
RSA No. 296 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 295 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2013 (INJ)
C/W
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2013
IN RSA No. 296 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
1. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
2. M NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
3. POORNIMA
D/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
Digitally AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
signed by R
DEEPA
4. SOWMYA
Location: D/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O DASHAVARA VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S C VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHANNAMMA
W/O LATE SIDDARAMEGOWDA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36822
RSA No. 296 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 295 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DASHAVARA VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTARICT
2. KAMAKSHAMMA
W/O MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
DASHAVARA VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
3. SAKAMMA
W/O CHANNAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
3(A) SURESH K.C.
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3(B) LINGARAJU K.C.
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
3(C) CHANDREGOWDA K.C.
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3(D) RAMALINGEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHANNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT KYASAPURA
KUTAGAL HOBLI
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
4. CHANNEGOWDA @ PEECHEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
4(A) H.K. PRABHAVATHI
W/O LATE C.B. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:36822
RSA No. 296 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 295 of 2013
4(B) NANDEESH
S/O LATE C.B. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4(C) MAMATHA
D/O LATE C.B. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
4(D) SUNITHA
D/O LATE C.B. RAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R4(A) TO R4(D) ARE R/AT
DASHAVARA VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. VISHWANATH SETTY & M.K. SHIVRAJU,
ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2
SRI. V. VISHWANATH SETTY & GOWHAR UNNISA,
ADVOCATES FOR R3(A-D) AND R4(A-D)
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.09.2021 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF
R4 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF R3)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 4.12.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.144/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
JMFC., CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, DISMISSING
THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 2.1.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.58/1995 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNAPATNA.
IN RSA NO. 295/2013
BETWEEN:
1. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:36822
RSA No. 296 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 295 of 2013
2. M NAGARAJU
S/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
3. POORNIMA
D/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. SOWMYA
D/O LATE MARILINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O DASHAVARA VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 501
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S C VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GUTHALAGOWDA
S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SETTIHALLI,
CHANNAPATNA TQ
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 501
2. H K PRABHAVATHI
W/O LATE C B RAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
3. NANDEESH
S/O LATE C B RAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. MAMATHA
D/O LATE C B RAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5. SUNITHA
D/O LATE C B RAJU
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:36822
RSA No. 296 of 2013
C/W RSA No. 295 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE
R/O DASHAVARA VILLAGE
MALUR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.VISHWANATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 4.12.2012 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.122/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC., CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.1.2010 PASSED IN
OS.NO.158/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) & JMFC., CHANNAPATNA.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo
seeking leave of the Court to withdraw the appeals.
2. Memo is placed on record.
3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the
parties have settled the dispute out of the Court and the
NC: 2024:KHC:36822
respondents have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh
towards litigation expenses. Accordingly, the respondents
have paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the appellants. Learned
counsel for the appellants accepted the same and
appellant No.2 is also present before the Court. He
acknowledges the receipt for having received a sum of
Rs.1 lakh from the respondents. In view of the same, the
appellants have no claim against the respondents and
seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the appeals.
4. Submissions are placed on record.
5. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as
withdrawn.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS
