Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20008 (KAR)

NIRMALA R SHETTY v. PRADEEP KUMAR SHETTY

RSA/92/2015 · 2025-03-28

Ravi V Hosmani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13219 RSA No. 92 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.92 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: NIRMALA R SHETTY, W/O LATE RATHNAKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O "AKHATHA", ANAND NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, NEAR BUS STAND BADAMI - 587 201, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRADEEP KUMAR SHETTY, S/O M MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O SAI RADHA PALACE A-WING, 601A, BRAHMAGIRI UDUPI-576101. 2. KUSUMA HEGGADTHI, W/O M MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O JAYALAXMI NILAYA, NMC II CROSS BEHIND VINAYAKA TALKIES, BHADRAVATHI TOWN - 577 301. 3. JAYALAXMI B SHETTY, D/O M MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4. SACHHIDANANDA SHETTY, S/O M MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SUNIL SHETTY, S/O M MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 5 R/O BEERU BETTU MANE, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13219 RSA No. 92 of 2015 MADAGA, ATHRADI VILLAGE - 575 323, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3, R4 & R5 - SERVED; V/O DATED 17.03.2025 APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2014 PASSED IN FR.NO.63/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SR.CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.09.2012 PASSED IN OS.NO.98/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. C.J. AND JMFC, UDUPI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT On previous occasion, learned counsel for appellant submitted that there was settlement between parties before trial Court and sought time to secure copies and report same. Today, learned counsel for appellant submits that he is unable to secure particulars of settlement. Since it is submitted that matter is settled between parties before trial Court, placing same on record, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42