- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17896 RSA No. 458 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 457 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2011 (POS) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2011 (POS) IN RSA No. 458/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHIVAMMA, D/O MARIYAPPA @ HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, KURISHANAIAHNAPALYA, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 2. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, CHANNAVALLI VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 3. SMT. DAVEERAMMA D/O HABBANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O JANATHA COLONY, HEBBUR, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.A.K GOWDA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SMT. SANAMMA W/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 2. SMT. REVANNA, S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17896 RSA No. 458 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 457 of 2011 RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 RESIDING AT GIDADAPALYA, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 3. SMT. BORAMMA, W/O ARALUMALLIGE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CHANNAVALLI COLONY, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2 (ABSENT); R3 - SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.66/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.12.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.93/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KUNIGAL. IN RSA NO. 457/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O RANGAPPA, D/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHANNAVALLI, NARAYANAKERE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 2. SMT. DEVEERAMMA, W/O HABBANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O NANJUNDAIAH, R/O HEBBUR JANATHA COLONY, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17896 RSA No. 458 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 457 of 2011 3. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O MARIYAPPA @ HONNAPPA, D/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KURISHNAIAHNAPALYA, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.A.K GOWDA, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SMT. DODDAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, D/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 RESIDING AT SULEKUPPE KAVAL, GIDADAPALYA, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK,TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 3. SMT. SENAMMA, W/O REVANNA, D/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. REVANNA S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 RESIDING AT GOTTIKERE MAJARE, CHANNATHIMMAIAHNAPALYA, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 5. SMT. SENAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A SULEKUPPE KAVAL, GIDADAPALYA, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17896 RSA No. 458 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 457 of 2011 KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 6. G. RAMESH, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAVALI, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 7. NAGARAJA, S/O NARASHIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A CHANNAVALI TEVARU, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 135. 8. SMT. BORAMMA, W/O ALAMALLIGE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT KURISHNAIAHNAPALYA, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572 135. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4(ABSENT); R5 AND R8 ARE SERVED; VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2016, NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.471/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.9.2009 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KUNIGAL. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17896 RSA No. 458 of 2011 C/W RSA No. 457 of 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT None appears for appellants. 2. On perusal of order sheet, it reveals that learned counsel for appellants was absent on previous date also and matters are being adjourned at his request on several earlier occasions. This would indicate that appellants are not diligent in prosecuting these appeals. Hence, appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32