Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30595 (KAR)

SRI N SANJEEVA GOWDA v. ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN BOLAR SINCE

RSA/1388/2012 · 2025-03-14

Ravi V Hosmani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10641 RSA No. 1388 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1388 OF 2012 (POS) BETWEEN: SRI. N SANJEEVA GOWDA, S/O LATE B.KRISHNAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A ANNAPURNA KRIPA, MARILKEMMINJA VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, P.O.DARBE, D.K PIN-574 202. APPELLANT (BY SRI. KN PRAVEEN KUMAR .,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN, BOLAR, SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S, 1(A) ASHVAJ KHAN, S/O LATE ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN, BOLAR, 1(B) REHANA BEGUM, D/O ADBUL GAFOOR KHAN, BOLAR, 1(C) RUKSHANA BEGUM, D/O ADBUL GAFOOR KHAN, BOLAR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT C/O SMT. ZARINA GAFOOR KHAN BOLAR, “ZARINA MANZIL”, MARIL, KEMMINJE VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, PO.DARBE, D.K – 574202. 2. SMT. ZARINA AG KHAN, W/O ABDUL GAFOOR KHAN BOLAR, AGED 74 YEARS,RESIDING AT ZARINA MANJIL MARIL, KEMMINJE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10641 RSA No. 1388 of 2012 PUTTUR TALUK, P.O DARBE, D.K – 574202. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K SHRIHARI FOR R1(A) & R2.,ADVOCATE; V/O DATED 29.03.2010, NOTICE TO R1(C) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; V/O DATED 17.01.2018, NOTICE TO R1(B) IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 16.2.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.84/1995 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., PUTTUR, D.K., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 30.9.1995 PASSED IN OS.NO.39/1991 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, PUTTUR, D.K. AND ETC,. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant has filed memo which reads as under: “The undersigned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is now died and his legal heirs reportedly purchased the disputed property and hence the above appeal be dismissed as not pressed.” 2. In view of the memo, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PNV - List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43