- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19439-DB RFA No. 2008 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2008 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. REVANNA S/O LATE C.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SMT.C.R.UMA D/O C.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SMT.C.R.SHIVARATHNA D/O LATE C.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT CHANNAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 159. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARAYAN MAYYAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O SOMASHEKARA, D/O LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19439-DB RFA No. 2008 of 2022 2. SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O UMESH, D/O LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT KUMBHAPURA VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 159. 3. SMT.MANJULA W/O HONNAIAH, D/O LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT INDIRANAGARA, BIDADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA-562 159. 4. SRI. LINGAIAH S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 5. SRI. REVANNA S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KUMBHAPURA VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRIT-562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. B.S.YASHASWINI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA.P.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 & R5-ARE SERVED) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.09.2022 PASSED IN OS No.225/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19439-DB RFA No. 2008 of 2022 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) 1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants intend to withdraw the appeal. They have also filed a memo in this regard. 2. It is submitted that an objection is raised by the office that there is some discrepancy as regards the signatures of the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants specifically submits that the appellants had come to his office and had signed the memo for withdrawal in his presence and submits that the parties have inter-se settled their disputes. This submission is not objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19439-DB RFA No. 2008 of 2022 4. In the above view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 15