Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35653
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R. NATARAJ
SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH – Appellant
Versus
SMT. NAGAMMA W/O VENKATESH – Respondent
RFA 820/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2010 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
SMT.GOWRAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.12, NARAYANAPPA GARDEN, NEAR G.K.M.COLLEGE, J.P.NAGAR, JARAGANAHALLI, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. VENKATAPPA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. V. DEVARAJ Digitally signed by S/O VENKATESH SUMA AGED 29 YEARS, Location:
HIGH COURT OF 3. V. SRIDHAR KARNATAKA S/O VENKATESH AGED 28 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2640, MANJUNATHA DRY CLEANERS, 28TH MAIN ROAD, 36TH CROSS, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-69 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJITH N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI SUBRAMANYA AND SRI S.
SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATES)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.03.2010, PASSED IN O.S.NO.16571/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE (CCH-29), DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
On the previous date of hearing, there was no representation for the appellant and hence, the appeal was adjourned to today. Learned counsel for the appellant is absent today also.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment and decree in question was subject to the right of the defendant and her son which was pending adjudication in O.S No.3519/2005 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.19). He submits that the suit in O.S. No.3519/2005 was dismissed by the Trial Court on 12.07.2012 and no appeal is filed against the said judgment till date.
In that view of the matter, this appeal has become infructuous. Nonetheless, since the learned counsel for the appellant is not present, the appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE SMA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3
