Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 61137 (KAR)

SRI MAHANTAPPA S/O BASAPPA HADAPAD v. SMT MAHADEVAKKA W/ON RAMANNA HONAKERI

RFA/100522/2022 · 2025-11-17

B Muralidhara Pai, R Devdas

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15598-DB RFA No. 100522 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI R.F.A. NO.100522 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHANTAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HADAPAD @ NAVHI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. YAREBUDIHALA, KUNDGOL TALUK, DISTRICT: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, AND SRI. UMESH P. HAKKARKI, AND SMT. GAYATRI S. R, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAKKA W/O. RAMANNA HONAKERI, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SHIGALI, TALUK: LAXMESHWARA, DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580001. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15598-DB RFA No. 100522 of 2022 2. SMT. GOWRAVVA W/O. YALLAPPA KUTANI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 3. SMT. ANASUYA @ VIJAYA W/O. SOMASHEKAR HADAPAD, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR JODA MARUTI TEMPLE, TALUK: GADAG, DISTRICT: GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, ADVOCATE) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI READ WITH SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.07.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDGOL IN O.S.NO.49/2020 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15598-DB RFA No. 100522 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo dated 14.11.2025, stating that the suit was amicably settled between the parties during the final decree proceedings, and that the present appeal may therefore be treated as dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant accordingly seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the matter before the trial court is still pending disposal, however orders could not be passed due to pendency of the present appeal. 3. The submission and the memo are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE VB /CT-AN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8