GOWRIBIDANUR v. CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
Case at a glance
- Bench
- K S HEMALEKHA
- Neutral citation
- 2024:KHC:36398
Outcome
Withdrawn
appeal is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the submission and the memo filed, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE BRN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
Judgment
1. SRI RANGADHAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
2. SRI LAKSHMIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 108.
3. SRI NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
4. SRI GANGADHARA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36398 RSA No. 2089 of 2017
5. SRI BRAHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
6. SRI RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
7. SRI SANJEEVA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
8. SMT SUJATHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, S/O RANGADHAMAIAH, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
9. SMT.RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D/O RANGADHAMAIAH, W/O RAJAPPA, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/AT. MADANAHALLI-562108, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI LAL KISHAN N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G S BHAT, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36398 RSA No. 2089 of 2017 AND:
SHRI NARASIMHAIAH, S/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE, R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI, HOSUR HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK-562 108, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
SHRI NARASANNA, S/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION:AGRICULTURE R/AT PAPAGANAHALLI HOSUR HOBLI-562 108 GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 10.07.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.109/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GOWRIBIDANUR DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 11.03.2015 PASSED IN OS.NO.197/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GOWRIBIDANUR. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36398 RSA No. 2089 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants do not intend to prosecute the present appeal and have filed a memo for withdrawal duly signed by appellants 2 to 9. Memo is accompanied by the death certificate of appellant No.1.
2. Memo of withdrawal reads as under: That pursuant the demise of father/Appellant No.1
11.12.2023, undersigned Appellants are not interested pursuing the captioned appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the captioned appeal as withdrawn. Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take on record the instant memo and pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice and equity.
Operative part
In view of the submission and the memo filed, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE BRN/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 as withdrawn
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.