Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 87309 (KAR)

SMT. SOMBAMMA, v. SMT. S. VYSHALI,

WP/23313/2024 · 2025-09-15

M Nagaprasanna

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37164 WP No. 23313 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23313 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SOMBAMMA, D/O LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. SMT JAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SRI RAJAPPA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SRI MANJULAMMA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. SRI PAPANNA S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 6. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL RESIDING AT KUDULU VILLAGE, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT- 560 068 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SWAMY N B N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37164 WP No. 23313 of 2024 AND: SMT. S. VYSHALI, W/O SRI CHANDRASHEKAR PACHAYAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 75, KLAMBERG LANE, ELLISVILLE MO-63021, CALIFORNIA REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND GPA HOLDER SRI S SHIVALINGAM R/AT NO. 174/F, 2ND MAIN ROAD, B BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT, SINGASANDRA, HOSUR ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU- 560 068. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.B.V.VIDYULATHA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER IN THE NATURE OF WRIT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 8.07.2024 IN IA NO. 1 IN OS NO. 98/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKALCONSEQUENTLY TO DECLARE THAT THE SUIT SCHEDULE SITE DOES NOT FROM PART OF SURVEY NO. 28 OF KUDULU VILLAGE SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The averment in the petition itself is that application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is passed after hearing both the parties. If that be so, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal under Order XLIII - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37164 WP No. 23313 of 2024 Rule 1 of the CPC and not the subject proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 358