Karnataka High Court
RFA/100033/2020 of SRI. VINOD SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GANJI Vs SRI. SHANKAR RUKMANNA MUCHANDI @ GENJI on 28 August 2026
2024:KHC-D:6132 RFA No. 100033 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100033/2020(PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VINOD SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GANJI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O: 176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.100033/2020(PAR)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI VINOD SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GANJI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
R/O: 176 TABIB LAN 4TH CROSS,
HUBBALLI.
SMT. UMA
W/O. SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GENJI
SINCE DECEASED HER LEGAL HEIRS
WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD.
2.
SHRI SANDESH SHANKAR
MUCHANDI @ GENJI,
AGE: 54 YRS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: TABIB LAND,
HUBBALII – 580 020.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRAKASH K. JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. SHANKAR RUKMANNA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE
ALREADY ON RECORD.
1A.
UMA W/O. SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GENJI,
SINCE DECEASED HER LEGAL
HEIRS ARE ONLY ON RECORD.
1B.
VINOD SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GENJI.
1C.
SANDESH SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GENJI.
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
ALREADY ARRAYED AS APPELLANT NO.2
SRI. GORAKH RUKMANNA
MUCHANDI @ GENJI,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY
RESPONDENTS 2(A) TO (D) HEREIN.
SMT. SUGANDHA GORAKNATH MUCHANDI,
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
BY HER LRS.
1.
SRI PRAMOD
GORAKNATH MUCHANDI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
R/O: 27/14, TABIB LAND, 4TH CROSS,
HUBBALLI – 580 020.
2.
SRI SANJAY
GORAKNATH MUCHANDI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORK,
R/O: 27/14, TABIB LAND, 4TH CROSS,
HUBBALLI – 580 020.
3.
MRS VAISHALI SANJAY BHOSALE,
D/O. GORAKNATH MUCHANDI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O : RELIANCE TOWNSHIP,
HODHIVALI, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: RAIGAD, MUMBAI – 410 206,
MAHARASHTRA.
4.
SMT. SUMAN
W/O. DINKAR JADHAV,
AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O : 168/29A, TAHASILDAR GALLI,
BELAGAVI – 590 001.
5.
SHRI SHIVAJI GUNDRAO PATIL,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: CONSULTING ENGINEER,
R/O : B6, MAHATMA PHULE CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,
PLOT NOS. 6667,
SHIVSHRUSHTI, KURLA (E),
MUMBAI – 400 024.
JANAKI RAMCHANDRA KOWADKAR
SINCE DECEASED IS REP. BY LRS.
6.
MOHAN @ APPA RAMCHANDRA KOWADKAR,
AGE: 66 YRS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: SHIVYOGI HOUSING COLONY,
HUKKERI ROAD, SAMKESHWAR,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 313.
7.
SURESH RAMCHANDRA KOWADKAR,
AGE: 60 YRS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
R/O: SHIVYOGI HOUSING COLONY,
HUKKERI ROAD, SAMKESHWAR,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 313.
8.
PRAKASH
RAMCHANDRA KOWADKAR,
AGE: 52 YRS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: SHIVYOGI HOUSING COLONY,
HUKKERI ROAD, SAMKESHWAR,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 313.
9.
ARUN RAMCHANDRA KOWADKAR,
AGE: 56 YRS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: SHIVYOGI HOUSING COLONY,
HUKKERI ROAD, SAMKESHWAR,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 313.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
27.09.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.303/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL
SENIOR
CIVIL
JUDGE
AND
CHIEF
JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE,
BELAGAVI
DISMISSING
THE
SUIT
FILED
FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for time to comply the office objections.
2. The office has raised so many office objections and the same were not complied with. Pursuant to the same, the appeal was came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2023. In-spite of that, office objections are not complied with.
3. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE
EM/CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42