CHIKKANANJAMMA v. SRI. NANJAIAH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1010. SMT. CHIKKAJAVARAMMA W/O BEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SMT. BASAMMA W/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ALL THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT DADADAHALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK - 570 004. SRI. VEERESH S/O R.S. RAJASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.50…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN:
CHIKKANANJAMMA W/O MAYANNA D/O LATE GORAKALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT DADADAHALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK - 570 004.
SMT. NANJAMMA W/O BEERAIAH D/O LATE GORAKALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.87, I CROSS, RAMA MANDIRA ROAD, T.K. LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 014. (BY SRI. KUMARA K.G, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) …APPELLANTS AND:
2. SRI. NANJAIAH S/O LATE GORAKALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SRI JAVARA S/O LATE GORAKALE GOWDA DEAD BY LRS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29392 RFA No. 1526 of 2022 HC-KAR 2(A). KALAMMA W/O LATE JAVARA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2(B). LAKSHMI D/O LATE JAVARA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2(C). RAVI S/O LATE JAVARA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2(D). MALATHI D/O LATE JAVARA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 2(E). MINOR SUNITHA D/O LATE JAVARA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
SRI. SHIVANANJA @ SHIVANANJAIAH S/O LATE GORAKALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SMT NANJAMMA W/O NANJEGOWDA @ DODDAGUNDU GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SMT.SIDDAMMA W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SMT. HOOVAMMA W/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS SRI MAHADEVA S/O RAME GOWDA @ ELE KOOSAIAH DEAD BY LRS - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29392 RFA No. 1526 of 2022 HC-KAR 7(A). SMT. LAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O MAHADEVA W/O LATE RAVI 7(B). SRI CHANDRA S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7(C). SRI. BEERAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 7(D). SMT. SHANTHI D/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 7(E). SRI. NAGENDRA S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
Operative part
SMT. CHIKKAJAVARAMMA W/O BEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS SMT. BASAMMA W/O ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS ALL THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT DADADAHALLI VILLAGE JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK - 570 004. SRI. VEERESH S/O R.S. RAJASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.50, "SRIGANDHA", 1ST MAIN, A BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 015. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29392 RFA No. 1526 of 2022 HC-KAR THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2020 PASSED IN OS.NO.87/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MYSURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appeal is of the year 2022. On 02.01.2024, this Court had issued notice to the respondents, but till today the appellants have not taken any steps for issuing notice to the respondents. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 96.
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.