- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1973 RSA No. 100447 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100447 OF 2018 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SHRI. SIDDAPPA S/O LAXMAN AMATI AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LINGANUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AND SRI. M.R. SYED, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. GANGAWWA W/O APPASHI GADAGI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LINGANUR, NOW AT JAMKHANDI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT.YANKAWWA W/O SIDDAPPA BASIDONI, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: LINGANUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, NOW AT VILLAGE KOLACHI, TQ: RAMADURG-591123, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. PARWATEWWA D/O KASHAPPA MAGINAMANI @ PUJARI, CALLAING HERSELF AS SMT. PARWATAWWA W/O LAXMAN AMATI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALAGI, NOW AT LINGANUR, TQ: JAMAKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SHRI. SHIVAGENAPPA ALIAS MANIGENAPPA CALLING HIMSELF AS S/O LAXMAN AMATI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SAVALGI, NOW AT LINGANUR, TQ: JAMKHANDI-587301, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI AND SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATES FOR R1 & R2; MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.02.04 11:09:22 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1973 RSA No. 100447 of 2018 R3 & R4-ADDRESSEE NOT LOCATED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.08.2016 IN RA NO.13/2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE JAMKHANDI, DISMISSING THE SUIT IN OS NO.100/2012 WITH COST BY JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND II ADDL. JMFC, JAMKHANDI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the lis between the parties is compromised in FDP No.2/2015 before the Competent Civil Court. In that view of the matter, as the division of the property has been made in terms of the compromise decree, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made in this appeal does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed in terms of the observation made above. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SMM / LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2