Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74957 (KAR)

SMT. MANGAMMA v. SMT. M. BHARATHI

RFA/1623/2023 · 2025-09-17

Anu Sivaraman, Rajesh Rai K

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39361-DB RFA No. 1623 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1623 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. MANGAMMA W/O MUNIRATHNAM C. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A No.91, GROUND FLOOR PRATHISTANA N K LAYOUT 4TH CROSS, VARAMAFI ROAD MARAGONDANAHALLI K.R. PURAM POST BIDERHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 037 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE & SRI. K.K. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE -(ABSENT)) AND: 1. SMT. M. BHARATHI W/O SHIVAPPA D/O MUNIRATHNAM C. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SMT. M. ARATHI W/O RASAPPA D/O MUNIRATHNAM C. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39361-DB RFA No. 1623 of 2023 3. M. MANJULA D/O MUNIRATHNAM C. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT No.90/1 MUNIREDDY COLONY BENNEGHANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 016 4. MUNIRATHNAM C. S/O LATE CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 5. M. JAYAPRAKASH S/O MUNIRATHNAM C. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT No.91 1ST FLOOR, MARAGONDANAHALLI BIDRAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 037 …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No.992/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39361-DB RFA No. 1623 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) There is no appearance for the appellant. 2. Till today, office objections are not complied. Therefore, in view of the peremptory order dated 10.09.2024 passed by this Court, no further order is required. 3. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PN List No.: 4 Sl No.: 16