C J VENKATESH v. KUMARI V NAYANA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in terms
Provisions considered
Judgment
(BY SRI.B RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
KUMARI V NAYANA D/O S VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
KUMARI THEJASVINI V D/O S VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
SMT SHYLAJA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT COURT ROAD SHAHAJANANDA NAGAR DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. SRI SAHAJANANDAPPA S/O GURAPPA Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16849 RSA No. 125 of 2019 SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3, 4 TO 6 AND 9 TO 11.
SMT. PILLAMMA W/O SAHAJANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2306, COURT ROAD, SHAHAJANANDA NAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
SRI GURUMURTHAPPA S/O SAHAJANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO.3016, YALEPETE DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
SRI S VENKATESH S/O SAHAJANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.2306, COURT ROAD SAHAJANANDA NAGAR, DODDABALLAPURA-561203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
SRI K NAGARAJ S/O D A KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.551, VEERABHADRAPPA TOWN 2ND WARD DODDABALLAPURA-561203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
THE SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR DODDABALLAPURA -561203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
SMT SHIVALAKSHMHAMMA D/O SAHAJANANDAPPA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16849 RSA No. 125 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1162 BASAVANNANAGAR HOODI MAHADEVAPURA POST-560048 BANGALORE.
SMT JAYAMMA D/O SAHAJANANDAPPA W/O DODDANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS SAHAJANANDANAGAR, D CROSS, DODDABALLAPURA-561203.
SMT GANGAMMA D/O SHAJANANDAPPA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDENT OF ARULAMALLIGE KASABA HOBLI-561203 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK. (BY SRI. RAMAIAH GOWDA L M.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, R3,R5,R7,R8,R9,R10 AND R11 ARE SERVED, VIDE ORDER DATED 21/04/2025 NOTICE TO R4 TO R11 ARE DISPENSED WITH) …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 15.11.2018 PASSED IN RA.NO.10017/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED19.03.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.265/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DODDABALLAPUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16849 RSA No. 125 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant files a memo stating that the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below had filed an appeal during the pendency of the proceedings at the instance of the well wishers. The dispute between the appellant and respondent Nos.1 to 3 is settled out of the Court. In view of the settlement both appellant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have sold suit item No.1 jointly in favour of one Sri. M. Chandrashekar under a registered sale deed dated
19.04.2025 wherein the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have accepted the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court passed in R.A.Nos.10017/2016 and 10018/2016 and seeks leave of this Court to dismiss the appeal in terms of the memo.
2. Memo is taken on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16849 RSA No. 125 of 2019
Operative part
3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in terms of memo. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.