Karnataka High Court
RFA/1945/2025 of SMT. CHINNAMMA Vs SMT. MUNIYAMMA on 11 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010544902025 NC: 2026:KHC:49677 RFA No. 1945 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1945 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHINNAMMA W/O SHANKAR, D/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1945 OF 2025 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. CHINNAMMA
W/O SHANKAR,
D/O LATE SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2.
SRI. RAVICHANDRA
S/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3.
SMT. KANAKA
W/O MUNIRAJU,
D/O SEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE – 560 087.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE KAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 67/3
KORAMANGALA VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by
MADHURI S
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
BANGALORE – 95.
2.
SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE KAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
3.
3(a)
SRI. SEENAPPA
S/O OF KAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
SMT. PADMAVATHI
W/O LATE SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO. 535, 3RD ‘B’ CROSS
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU – 560 103.
4.
SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE KAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
5.
SRI. KARAGAPPA
S/O LATE KAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BELLANDUR VILLAGE,
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU – 87.
6.
ARIYANAYAKIPURAM INVESTMENTS PVT LTD.,
OFFICE AT NO.32/2,
5TH MAIN,
CHAMRAJAPET,
BENGALURU – 18.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE A.V.VENKATACHALAM
SMT. MANJULADEVI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
D/O LATE CHENGA REDDY
HC-KAR
W/O SRI. C R SHEKAR REDDY
R/AT NO. 102, FERN CITY LAYOUT, DODDA
NEKKUNDI, MARATHALLI KR PURAM
RING ROAD, BENGALURU – 37
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.12.2024)
SUBADRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 4-21/1 SRI KRISHNANAGAR
M R PALLI, TIRUPATHI - 02
CHITOOR DISTRICT
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.12.2024)
7.
SRI. SAROJ AGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O SITA RAM AGARWAL
8.
SMT. MAMTA AGARWAL
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O SAROJ AGRAWAL
NO.9 AND 10 BOTH ARE
R/AT NO.2, ROWLAND ROAD, CALCUTTA
9.
SMT. BHARATHI K REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
W/O Y C KESHAVA REDDY
R/AT NO. 583, 16-B MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 034.
10.
SRIMOOLA INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,
OFFICE AT NO. 32/2, 5TH MAIN,
CHAMRAJAPET, BENGALURU – 18.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE A.V.VENKATACHALAM
SRI. DEOKAINANDAN DABRIAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE UDAIRAM DABRIWAL
R/AT M.G. ROAD, GANTOK
SIKKIM – 737 101.
HC-KAR
(DELETED AS PER ORDER
DATED 21.10.2017 & 04.02.2025)
11.
SRI. JIVAN DABRIWAL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE UDAIRAM DABRIWAL
R/AT M.G. ROAD, GANTOK,
SIKKIM – 737 101.
15.
SMT. SAROJ DABRIWAL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O JEEVAN DABRIWAL
R/AT M G ROAD, GANTOK,
SIKKIM - 737 101.
16.
SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR GOEL
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O. MADANLAL GOEL,
R/AT NO.3/1, QUEENS PARK,
ANEX BUILDING,
CALCUTTA – 19.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
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
AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2025 PASSED IN OS NO.2949/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 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
ORAL JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo to withdraw the appeal, which reads as under: “MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEAL
The Appellant named above humbly submits that the appellants are prays this Hon'ble court be pleased to permit the appellants to withdraw the above appeal, in the interest of justice."
2. Accepting the said memo and submission of learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8