Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 43726 (KAR)

PADMANABHA. S v. CHANDRAPRABHA. S. G.

RFA/2251/2024 · 2026-09-22

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558962024 NC: 2026:KHC:52312 RFA No. 2251 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2251 OF 2024 (MON) BETWEEN: PADMANABHA. S, S/O LATE SUNKU GUNDAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT NO.121, PRUTHVI BUILDING, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE) AND: CHANDRAPRABHA. S.G., AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O. S.GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY, R/A 415, 7TH MAIN, BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011. SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS: 1. D.M. ASHWATHALAKSHMI, D/O. S. GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by N UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558962024 NC: 2026:KHC:52312 RFA No. 2251 of 2024 2. S.G. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. S. GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 3. DR. S.G.VASANTH KUMAR, S/O. S.GOPALAKRISHNAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ALL 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.34/1, 7TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRAPRABHA S.G., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.764 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF C/C XXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BANGALORE., PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010558962024 NC: 2026:KHC:52312 RFA No. 2251 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo praying to withdraw the appeal stating that in Ex.No.867/2025, the parties have compromised the matter with each other. Therefore, the appellant is withdrawing the appeal. 2. Memo is placed on record. 3. In view of the memo, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Registry is directed to return the court fee to the appellant with proper identification as per rules. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6