- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1493 RFA No. 935 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 935 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SMT SONNAMMA SINCE DEAD LEAVING. BEHIND THEIR DAUGHTER AND SONS HER LRS, GOPALAPPA, S/O LATE VENKARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO. JANABANDA VILLAGE, HOSUR TALUK, KRISHNAGIRI (D), TAMILNADU-635 001. (b) MUNIYAMMA W/O MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT UNDLUVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 107. 3. SMT. SONNAMMA & SMT. MUNIYAMMA, ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT INDLUVADI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1493 RFA No. 935 of 2023 ANEKAL, KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL-562 107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANDAKUMAR.T.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI R.VENKATESHA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT C/O MANOHAR, SITE NO.30, 2ND CROSS, ROYAL HEMITAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 089. 2. SMT. LEELA, W/O VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT C/O MANOHAR, SITE NO.30, 2ND CROSS, ROYAL HEMITAGE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 089. 3. SRI. RAMALINGA, S/O LATE MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT N.91, 3RD STAGE, KIRLOSKER COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1493 RFA No. 935 of 2023 ORAL ORDER As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 06.01.2025, on that day, finally a week’s time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which the office was directed to list the appeal under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’ on 15.01.2025. The appeal is listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal of appeal for non-compliance of office objections’. Despite granting sufficient time, the appellants have not complied with the office objections. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of peremptory order dated 06.01.2025, the appeal is dismissed for non- compliance of office objections. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7