Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27039 (KAR)

NAGARATHNAMMA v. MAHESHA

RSA/1118/2022 · 2025-07-08

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24624 RSA No. 1118 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1118 OF 2022 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. NAGARATHNAMMA WIFE OF NAGARAJA MURTHY DAUGHTER OF LATE RACHAPPA @ CHIKKUSAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 417. 2. SUMITHRA WIFE OF RAJU DAUGHTER OF LATE RACHAPPA @ CHIKKUSAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT HARHARA BUBALLI VILLAGE SATANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA – 562 126. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SACHIN R.R., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. MAHESHA SON OF LATE RACHAPPA @ CHIKKUSAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT B.G.PURA B.G. PURA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA - 571 417. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24624 RSA No. 1118 of 2022 2. K.R.NAGARATHNA WIFE OF MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT B.G.PURA B.G.PURA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA - 571 417. 3. SHIVAJI RAO SON OF LATE KRISHNA RAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF SRI BILIGIRI RANGA SWAMY CANTEEN, 20TH CROSS KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA BENGALURU - 560 067. 4. N.S.GUNESH SON OF SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR S RESIDING AT THOREKADANAHALLI VILLAGE HALAGURU HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA – 571 421. 5. SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY SON OF LATE G. SOMASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12 WARD NO.31, 2ND STAGE ARCHAKARA HALLI RAMANAGARA - 562 159. 6. B.M.SHIVASWAMY SON OF LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.212 SHIVAKRUPANILAYA WARD NO.03, NES EXTENSION MALAVALLI TOWN MANDYA - 571 430. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24624 RSA No. 1118 of 2022 7. CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMIGALU SON OF RENOUNCED AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT HORAMATA PEETADHYAKSHA B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA - 571 417. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 42 RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.04/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MALAVALLI. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants is absent. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has not paid the cost and also not complied with the office objections, even though the matter is listed fourth time for non-compliance of office objections. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24624 RSA No. 1118 of 2022 3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of cost. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16