Karnataka High Court
RFA/2251/2024 of PADMANABHA. S Vs CHANDRAPRABHA. S. G. on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010558962024 NC: 2026:KHC:52312 RFA No. 2251 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2024 (MON) BETWEEN: PADMANABHA. S, S/O LATE SUNKU
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2024 (MON)
BETWEEN:
PADMANABHA. S,
S/O LATE SUNKU GUNDAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.121,
PRUTHVI BUILDING, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRAPRABHA. S.G.,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
W/O. S.GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY,
R/A 415, 7TH MAIN,
BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 011.
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS:
1.
D.M. ASHWATHALAKSHMI,
D/O. S. GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by N
UMA
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
S.G. SURESH KUMAR,
S/O. S. GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
3.
DR. S.G.VASANTH KUMAR,
S/O. S.GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ALL 3 ARE RESIDING AT
NO.34/1, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRAPRABHA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
23.07.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.764 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF
C/C XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BANGALORE., PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY
OF MONEY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
HC-KAR
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.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo praying to withdraw the appeal stating that in Ex.No.867/2025, the parties have compromised the matter with each other. Therefore, the appellant is withdrawing the appeal.
2. Memo is placed on record.
3. In view of the memo, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Registry is directed to return the court fee to the appellant with proper identification as per rules.
Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6