- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12591 RSA No.1055 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1055 OF 2015 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SMT. GOWRAMMA SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. 1. SRI. SUGNANACHARI S/O LATE AKKASALIGARA DODDANNACHARI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 2. SRI. RAJAGOPLACHARI S/O LATE AKKASALIGARA DODDANNACHARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. SRI. RAMACHANDRACHARI SINCE DEAD BY HIS L.RS. 3. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE RAJAGOPALACHARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. 4. MANJULA D/O LATE RAJAGOPALACHARI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. 5. LAKSHMI D/O LATE RAJAGOPALACHARI AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT. NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MARSUR DHAKALE KASABA HOBLI Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12591 RSA No.1055 of 2015 ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARENDRA D.V. GOWDA, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. CHIKKANNACHARI S/O LATE MALIGACHARI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI. MALLESHACHARI .B S/O DODDABASAVACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. BOTH ARE R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MARSUR DHAKALE, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562016. 3. SRI. ASWATHANARAYANA S/O LATE E. CHINNAPPA AGED MAJOR NAGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE MARSUR DHAKALE, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-562106 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA V.D. ADV., FOR R3 V/O/DTD:29.3.2021 APPEAL AGAINST R1 & R2 IS ABATED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2012 PASSED IN RA NO.19/06 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.05.2003 PASSED IN OS NO.78/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., ANEKAL. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12591 RSA No.1055 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT As per order dated 17.11.2022, appellants were granted time to take steps in respect of deceased respondents no.1 and 2. Till date steps are not taken. Hence, appeal is dismissed as abated against said respondents. 2. It is seen that this is plaintiffs' appeal against concurrent findings. Presence of all respondents would be necessary and failure of appellants to take steps against deceased respondents no.1 and 2 would render appeal abated. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26