- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20112 RSA No. 259 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2014 (PAR) BETWEEN: MANJULAMMA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O HARIHARA PURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR H B., ADVOCATE (ABSENT) AND: 1. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. RAMYA D/O LATE MANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O HOSAHOLALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 3. NINGAMMA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20112 RSA No. 259 of 2014 4. SHANKAREGOWDA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 5. SHIVARAMEGOWDA S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ARE R/O HOSAHOLALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 6. SMT GOWRAMMA D/O RAMEGOWDA W/O CHANDREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O CHIKKAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 7. PARVASETTY S/O MALLAPPA SETTY R/O HOSAHOLALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, K R PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S MRUTHYUNJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4 R6 & R7 ARE SERVED V/O DATED 31.08.2016 APPEAL AGAINST R3 & R5 IS DISMISSED) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 25.7.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.PET, MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 27.8.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.72/2000 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJAPETE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20112 RSA No. 259 of 2014 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT The matter was listed on 05.06.2025. Case called twice, none appeared for the appellant and it was made clear that a week’s time was granted. In case if there was no representation on behalf of the appellant on the next date of hearing, appropriate order will be passed. Even today, case called. None appears for the appellant. As the appeal is of the year 2014, it seems that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE SKS