High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Neelamma @ Neelavva Wife Of Lt … vs Smt Shanthavva on 1 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Neelamma @ Neelavva Wife Of Lt … vs Smt Shanthavva on 1 December, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT
BENCH AT DHARWAD.

DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K. SREEDHAR' 

AND

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEEMRAVCI 

RFA No.V419/E-2ooE7_' C

BETWEEN:

Smt.Neefamfna  .Ne.e'ia\/Va

W/o iate Ghandr3'S'heka'r:.--ia'h.  
Gandhadamat'h,1'.;,agedab"ut 64 years 4
Occ: Agfitcuit]urist"f?:  *  

R/o Baha.ddur'o'an_d"i»Vi'i':«ag'e£ -- I
Talukavland Dist:'«K'op'pa.|'---._ 
Representedt by"'he"r.gerieral power of
Attorney Sr'!.S'hi.va.iah-._Gahdhadamath
Agegd "about 43. years, Occ: Agriculturist
R;7o':3a_h_ad.durband*-E--VIIIage

Cf Ta|u!<_ano'Dist: Koppal ----- 580 013.  APPELLANT

 ._(B"y_Sr*i':4T"r_nCV_.__n{?;'Pétii, Adv)

AME):

~ ,  : .Smt.t§Ev2-a;nthavva
 W/'o,Maha|ingaiah Wadeyar

'remath, Major,

 " Occ: Agricuturist
'V ~.----R/0 Basapur Viilage



Taiuka and District 
Koppai -~ 580 013  RESPONDENT 

(By Sri: N P Vivek Mehta, Adv for R1, R2 deieteti)~4′.f;:’..’__:’17

This RFA is fiied under Section 96 or.c:;=pf(;–‘vagaijnst tine.

judgment and decree dated 07..i}2».-20074 pasisle1d’injj.O’S
No.2/2003 on the fiie of the Civi|_JTudg’e and’

Koppal, dismissing the suit for’*.pa*»r_tition ‘~a_Vnd_sep.arate._

possession.

This RFA is coming for Vxorderws this day,
KSREEDHAR RAO, Judge delivered.thefoilowing:5
Learned 4Cou_nse_i’V”Vf:oi~::: submits that

-I.

respondent. “iaio.__27..Is;’–_Va’ fo.r_mai “–pa:r_ty__and not a necessary

party fori.a.d,};:\i:d’iCat:i;p.n. fur-th_.er§ submitted that the Trial

Court has respondent No.2 is not a

necessary”p4arty.VV’ .In’A.tha:t..’i’view, Counsei for the appeiiant

fiiesa memo for”–d€.._i_e_tivng the respondent No.2. Request is

gra-n_tedV._fitRespondent No.2 is permitted to be deieted.

tVi.tie–“.’to amended.

AA [ Raifties are present. The Counsel appearing for the

VA are present. Appeiiant and respondent No.1 have

3-n

iied a compromise petition. They admit the terms of

compromise. The terms are lawful. Hence, the appeal is

disposed of in terms of the compromise and decree to be’

drawn accordingly.

~~~~