Karnataka High Court
RFA/1178/2023 of SHIVANNA, Vs SMT. SHARADAMMA, on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010291292023 NC: 2026:KHC:49067 RFA No. 1178 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1178 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1178 OF 2023 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1.
SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
2.
JUNJAMMA
W/O SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT: LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK
PIN – 572 107.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH T M AND
SRI. BASAVARAJU L, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. SHARADAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2.
NINGAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
3.
KEMPAIAH
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
4.
CHAITRA D/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
Digitally
signed by
MADHURI S
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT: HUNASEKATTE VILLAGE
BUKKAPATANA HOBLI
SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT
PIN – 572 115.
5.
G M HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
S/O LATE MUDLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
6.
H NATARAJU
S/O G M HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R5 AND R6 ARE RESIDING AT:
P.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE
SOREKUNTE POST, BELLAVI HOBLI
TUMAKURU TALUK
PIN – 572 128.
7.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE
KIADB, MARUTHI TOWER
NEAR SIT COLLEGE
SIT MAIN ROAD, B H ROAD
TUMAKURU CITY – 572 103.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.03.2023
PASSED IN OS.NO.331/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU 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 appellants has filed a memo to withdraw the appeal, which reads as under: “MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL
The undersigned counsel for the appellants most respectfully submit that, as instructed by the appellants, since during the pendency of the above appeal, the parties have amicably settled the dispute between themselves out of Court, voluntarily and with their free consent. That in view of the said settlement, the Appellants does not wish to prosecute the above appeal any further.
WHEREFORE, the Appellants most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the Appellants to withdraw the above appeal and dismiss the same as withdrawn, in the interest of justice and equity."
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.: 4