Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19850 (KAR)

DEVAMMA v. PUTTARAJEGOWDA

RSA/217/2015 · 2025-03-05

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9331 RSA No. 217 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2015 (SP) BETWEEN: DEVAMMA W/O MOGANNAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O D.NO.211, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND TOWN CLUB, HEMAVATHI EXTENSION, K.R. PETE TOWN & TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. PIN-571426. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRACHAR M., ADV.-ABSENT) AND: 1. PUTTARAJEGOWDA, S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, MAJOR. 2. DEVARAJU S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, MAJOR. 3. CHANDREGOWDA, S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, MAJOR. 4. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, MAJOR. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9331 RSA No. 217 of 2015 5. MALLESH S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SINGAPURA VILLAGE, PALYA HOBLI, AALURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN-573201. 6. RANGEGOWDA @ ANNA, S/O LATE HONNEGOWDA, MAJOR, R/O NAMBIHALLI, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. PIN-573116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6 - ABSENT.) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.11.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.249/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.2.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.27/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) & JMFC., K.R.PETE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT On filing of memo of retirement by learned counsel for appellant, it was accepted and Court notice was issued to appellant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9331 RSA No. 217 of 2015 2. Report of jurisdictional Civil Court indicates that appellant has left address without intimating about correct address. There is no representation and even alternative arrangement is not made. As such, appellant has no interest in prosecuting appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14