✦ Karnataka High Court

SRI. M.RAMA MOHAN., ADVOCATE) v. BANGALORE-560 064

RFA No. 632 of 2023JYOTI MULIMANI3 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 1919. SRI M.M.BABU S/O LATE G VAJRAVELU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, SFS 407, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED…

Judgment

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2023 (PAR/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT.YELLAMMA @ LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O THIMMA RAJU.G, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT MANIVALA VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.RAMA MOHAN., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND:

1.

SMT.RAMAKKA PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT BODABANDANAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

2.

SMT. THIPPAKKA W/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

3.

MASTER NAVEEN S/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2196 RFA No. 632 of 2023

4.

KUMARI BANU PRIYA D/O LATE GANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GAURDIAN BY HER MOTHER, SMT THIPPAKKA.

5.

SRI GURUMURTHY S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

6.

SMT HANUMAKKA W/O LATE ADINAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

7.

SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

8.

SRI RAJU S/O LATE ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 8 RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

9.

SMT SHARADAMMA W/O NARAYANARAJU.M.C., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MYADANAHALLI, KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

10.

SRI YELLAPPA S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2196 RFA No. 632 of 2023 RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

11.

SRI NAGENDRA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

12.

SMT GAYATHRI, W/O RAJASHEKARAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT D.KOTTAPALLI, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK.

13.

SRI GANGADHARAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

14.

SRI GANGAPPA S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

15.

SRI SUBBAPPA S/O LATE GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2196 RFA No. 632 of 2023

16.

SMT BHULAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

17.

SMT SAVITHA W/O SHANTHAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

18.

SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BODABANDANAHALLI, NAGARAGERE HOBLI, GAURIBIDANURU TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

19.

SRI M.M.BABU S/O LATE G VAJRAVELU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, SFS 407, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2196 RFA No. 632 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Sri. Nagaraj., counsel on behalf of Sri. Rama Mohan.M., for the appellant has appeared in person. A perusal of the office note depicts that the value of the subject matter of the appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). In view of Section 19(1) of Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, an appeal is maintainable before the District Court. For statistical purpose, the Regular First Appeal is disposed of. MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. RFA No. 632 of 2023). ← Search more judgments