✦ Karnataka High Court

(BY SRI DARSHAN FOR SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATES) v. MANDYA

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as abated

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 44. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as abated. Sd/- JUDGE List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

Judgment

SRI N JAMBU S/O K NINGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(a) SMT.N.VANAJAKSHAMMA W/O CHIKKAHOMBAIAH D/O LATE K.NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O NO.1668, 3RD CROSS VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA 1(b) SMT. N PANKAJAMMA W/O S KRISHNAPPA & D/O LATE K NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NO.96/11, 23RD CROSS, K R LAYOUT, J P NAGAR, 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU 1(c) SMT M N PRAMEELA KUMARI @ KANYAKUMARI W/O SITARAM AND D/O LATE K NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O SRINIVASAPURA, UMAADAHALLI GATE, MANDYA – 571 428 (BY SRI DARSHAN FOR SRI KEMPANNA, ADVOCATES) …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20476 RSA No. 767 of 2011 AND:

#2. SMT PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI N KADAIAH AGED ABOUTG 57 YEARS ARALAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE NAGAMANGALA ROAD, VISHWESWARA NAGAR, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT SRI N KADAIAH S/O LATE K NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSORE NAGAMANGALA ROAD, VISHWESHWARA NAGAR, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 2(a) SMT.PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2(b) MAHESHA S/O LATE KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2(a) AND 2(b) ARE RESIDING AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE VISHWESHWARANAGAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. 2(c) SMT.BANUMATHI W/O VISHWESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20476 RSA No. 767 of 2011 2(d) SMT.RAJESHWARI W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2(c) AND 2 (d) ARE RESIDING AT HARALAHALLI VILLAGE VISHWESHWARANAGAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. 2(e) THEJASWANI @ SWETHA W/O M.K.LOKESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.19/11, 5TH CROSS 6TH PHASE, K.R.LAYOUT J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE 2(f) SMT.DAKSHAYINI D/O LATE N.KADAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT HARALAHALLI, V.V.NAGAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK

#3. SRI N SHIVASHANKARA MURTHY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 3(a) PAULINE D SOUZA W/O LATE N SHIVASHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 3(b) DEEPAK S S/O LATE N SHIVASHANKARA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3(c) ANVITHA BEING MINOR REPTD BY HER MOTHER AS A GUARDIAN PAULIN D SOUZA I E 3(A), - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20476 RSA No. 767 of 2011 3(a) TO 3(c) ARE THE APPLICANTS AND RESIDENTS OF D NO.1668, 3RD CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR, MANDYA

#4. N. MALLIKARJUNA S/O K.NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O 3RD CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, MANDYA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S RAJASHEKAR AND SRI K.E.JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATES FOR R1; R2(A), R2(C), R2(D), R2(E) ARE SERVED; R2(F) SERVED ON I.A.NO.1/14 TO I.A.3/14 NOTICE NOT ORDERED ON PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (A TO C), R4; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.21, DUE TO NON TAKING OF STEPS APPEAL AGAINST R2(B) STAND DISMISSED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.120/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.11.2001 PASSED IN O.S.NO.340/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN), MANDYA. THIS RSA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Sri Darshan, advocate, for Sri Kempanna, learned counsel for the appellants is present.

#2. Learned counsel submits that appellant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and respondent No.4 have died in the year 2020 and - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20476 RSA No. 767 of 2011 despite of his best efforts, he could not get the details of the legal representatives of the deceased parties, to bring them on record.

#3. Since the parties are said to have died in the year 2020, by operation of law, appeal stands abated.

#4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as abated. Sd/- JUDGE List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as abated

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 treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

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. RSA No. 767 of 2011). ← Search more judgments