IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2022 BETWEEN SRI RANGANATHA, S/O LATE MEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT BANDREHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 127. ...APPELLANT/S (By Sri./Smt : G. S. VENKAT SUBBARAO AND A. RAJESH, ADVOCATES) AND 1 . SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O DODDARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O MEENAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 3 . SMT. KAVITHA, D/O MEENAPPA AND LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, …2 RSA NO.348/2022 2 4 . SMT. PALLAVI, D/O MEENAPPA AND LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O BANDRE HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 127. 5 . SMT. RANGAMMA, W/O C. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS JUNIOR HEALTH ASSISTANT, K. NARAYANAPURA, P. H. C. BANGALORE URBAN – 562 135. 6. MUDDKKA W/O MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, RES: BANDREHALLY VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK – 572 127. 7 . SMT. KARIYAMMA, W/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O RAGINININGANAHALLI, MADAKASIRA TALUK, …3 RSA NO.348/2022 3 ANANTHAPURA DISTIRCT, ANDHRA PRADESH – 515 001. 8 . SRI MEENAPPA, S/O MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O BANDRE HALLI, KASABA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 127. …RESPONDENT/S REGULAR SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.12.2020 PASSED IN RA.NO.5037/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.02.2016 PASSED IN OS.NO.190/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI. This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following Order:- ORAL ORDER The learned counsel for the appellant again seeks time. This matter is listed for 5th time for non compliance of office …4 RSA NO.348/2022 4 objections. Inspite of earlier also imposed cost of Rs.500/-, the counsel has not complied with the office objections. Hence, on further cost of Rs.1,000/- payable at the Registry, another two weeks time is granted. If cost not paid and not complied with the office objections, appeal will be dismissed without reference to the bench. Sd/- JUDGE NOTE : Vide Court Order dated 17.06.2025, the office objections are not complied with. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. COPY Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR T By: SR R By: VS C By: GS Ty Date: 28.11.2025 C Date: 04.12.2025