SRI KARIBASANNA v. SRI VASANTHA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Judgment
SRI KARIBASANNA S/O K H MENAKAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BELENDUR HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT (BY SRI. B S MURALI.,ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI VASANTHA W/O B C MAHESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT S N ROAD HOSANAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577418.
SRI B H MENAKAPPA GOWDA S/O HALAPPA GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LR’s (R1, R3, R4 & R5 ARE TREATED AS LR’s CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.01.2024)
SMT VEENA W/O NAGABHUSHANA AGED ABOUT 34 YERS R/AT MUTTALAKOPPA NERUR POST SIRSI TALUK-581401. RAGHAVENDRA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20576 RSA No. 492 of 2013
SMT LALITHA W/O JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT JAMBALLI HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577418
SMT PARVATHI W/O BASAVARAJA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT BANSHETTY KOPPA HUMCHA HOBLI HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577418. (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4 & R5 NOTICE TO R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; V/O DATED 9.1.2024 , R1, R3, R4 & R5 ARE TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE LOWER COURT RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 15.12.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SAGAR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 24.9.2010 PASSED IN OS.NO.76/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOSANAGARA AND ETC. THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT
1. The appellant is before this Court seeking for the following relief; a) Call for the entire lower court records; b) Set-aside the impugned judgment and Decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and in R.A.No.51/2010 dated JMFC at Sagar - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20576 RSA No. 492 of 2013
15.12.2012, and the judgement and decree in O.S.No.76/2007 dated 24.09.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge & JMFC, Hosanagara; c) Consequently dismiss the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.76/2007 on the file of the learned Civil Judge & JMFC at Hosanagara; d) Alternatively, direct allotment of share to the parties the movable properties/fixed deposits vide Exhibit-D1 to D4; e) Pass such other order or decree as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and allow this appeal with costs throughout, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. A memo dated 11.6.2024 has been filed signed by the appellant as also counsel for the appellant which reads as under; Memo for Withdrawal The appellant respectfully submits as under; The appellant having the above Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of the Court below awarding partition and separate possession to the same has been the defendants/plaintiffs, questioned upon various grounds. Since the Appellant is not-interested in pursuing the above Appeal any further, in order to maintain the blood relationship with his sisters, he craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to permit him to withdraw the above appeal as not pressed, in the interest of justice and equity. Hence this Memo. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20576 RSA No. 492 of 2013
Operative part
3. Accepting the said memo and submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: counsel for the appellant, the appeal is dismissed as
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.