- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2077 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. RANGAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. ERAMMA D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. MANJANNA S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. SHIVALINGAIAH S/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. NEELAMMA D/O LATE DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT PALIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNENAHALLI POST, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024 BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 128. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KISHAN G.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THIMMAKKA W/O LATE ERAIAH AGED 65 YEARS, 2. BALAIAH S/O LATE ERAIAH AGED 44 YEARS, 3. SHIVAMMA D/O LATE ERAIAH W/O ERABALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. GOWRAMMA D//O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. BALAIAH S//O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 6. PALIRANGAIAH S/O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNENAHALLI POST, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 128. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024 7. KARIYAPPA S//O LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALIHATTI VILLAGE, CHANNENAHALLI POST, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572128 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA M.R, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KUSHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 - BALAIAH - SERVED; R7 - KARIYAPPA - SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.990/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, TUMAKURU, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants, having advanced arguments on merits, was queried by this Court as to how the appellants, while maintaining the present appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could assail the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25238 RFA No. 2077 of 2024 impugned judgment and decree on the ground that no proper opportunity was afforded to contest the suit. In response, learned counsel submitted that the appellants intend to withdraw the appeal, reserving liberty to avail the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. In light of the aforesaid submission, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the appellants to seek appropriate relief under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if so advised and permissible in law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK