Karnataka High Court
Smt. Puttamma vs Smt. Nagarathna on 31 January, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4567-DB
RFA No. 741 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGE 85 YEARS
D/O NADUPEERANNA BHOVI
R/O MENASIGANAHALLI VILLAGE
VANAKANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
REP. BY HER SON GPA HOLDER
VEERABHADRAPPA, AGE: 52
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by SUMATHY (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI GOWDAR - ADVOCATE)
KANNAN AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT. NAGARATHNA
KARNATAKA D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O KOTHANURU MAIN ROAD
HARI NAGAR, ANJANAPUR POST
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560062.
2. SRI BALAKRISHNA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGE 37 YEARS
R/O HARI NAGAR
ANJANAPUR POST
KOTJANURU MAIN ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4567-DB
RFA No. 741 of 2020
UTARAHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560062.
3. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
4. SMT CHOWDAMMA
D/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
5. BABU
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS
6. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
7. VEERAPPA
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGE 27 YEARS
8. VINAYA KUMAR
S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA
AGE 27 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 8
R/O DEVARAJU LAYOUT
KOGILU VILLAGE
BULUGUNTA ROAD
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560079.
9. SEENAPPA
S/O CHENNAPPA
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O CHOODENAHALLI VILLAGE
VANAKANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DIST-562106.
10. SHEBHO RADHAKRISHNA
S/O BHODIYAPPA
AGE 54 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4567-DB
RFA No. 741 of 2020
R/O NO.659/B
ASSISTANT TAX OFFICER ROAD
NEAR NETHAJI CIRCLE
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-560054.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B T VENKATESH - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.10; RESPONDENT NO.9 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
01.03.2019 PASSED IN O.S.410/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL.
THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff /
appellant herein against the judgment and decree
rendered by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Anekal in O.S.No.410/2008 dated 01.03.2019. The
operative portion of the aforesaid judgment and decree
indicates that the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:4567-DB
2. The learned counsel Shri Hanumanthappa Haravi
Gowdar for the appellant and the learned counsel Shri B.T.
Venkatesh for Respondent No.10 are present before Court
physically.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed an
application I.A.No.1/2020 under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 298 days in
filing the appeal. The said application is appended with an
affidavit of the of the GPA Holder of the appellant,
assigning reasons. The reasons assigned in the affidavit in
support of the application being found to be justifiable and
acceptable, the application I.A.No.1/2020 is allowed and
the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant files a memo
dated 28.01.2025 seeking to withdraw this appeal. It is
stated in memo that the appellant / plaintiff has agreed to
receive a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the 10th respondent.
In this regard, it is stated in the memo that the appellant
NC: 2025:KHC:4567-DB
has received a Demand Draft bearing No.893616 dated
27.01.2025 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-; another D.D.
bearing No.893615 dated 27.01.2025 for a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/-, both drawn on Canara Bank, Gokula
Branch, Bengaluru. The 10th respondent herein has
further agreed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
to the appellant at the time of execution of confirmation of
the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, in full and
final settlement. Hence, the parties have agreed that
either the appellant or 10th respondent would not claim
any rights by way of any subsequent proceedings. In the
light of the settlement arrived at between the appellant
and the 10th respondent, the learned counsel for the
appellant prays to withdraw the present appeal.
5. The said memo dated 28.01.2025 is signed by the
appellant as well as the 10th respondent inclusive of the
learned counsel for the appellant. Hence, the memo is
taken on record and the appeal stands dismissed as
withdrawn.
NC: 2025:KHC:4567-DB
6. The application I.A.No.2/2020 for temporary
injunction is disposed of as a consequence.
SD/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
KS
