Karnataka High Court

RFA/100033/2020 of SRI. VINOD SHANKAR MUCHANDI @ GANJI Vs SRI. SHANKAR RUKMANNA MUCHANDI @ GENJI on 28 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

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

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

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

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead