SUBRAY S/O NARAYAN HEGDE, v. SEETARAM S/O GANAPATI HEGDE,
RSA/5927/2010 · 2025-09-16
G Basavaraja
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52711 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 52711 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12143 RSA No. 5927 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 5927 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SUBRAY S/O. NARAYAN HEGDE, AGE: 730 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. DEVISAR VILALGE, TQ. SIDDAPUR, DIST. NORTH KANNADA-581340. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SEETARAM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1A) MOHAN S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ADSARA, POST: DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA. 1B) DIVAKAR S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ADSARA, POST: DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA. 1C) ISHWAR S/O. SEETARAM HEGDE AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: PADATTUR, TQ: PALLIPATTU, TAMILNADU. 1D) KRISHNAVENI W/O. GANAPATI HEGDE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KOPPESAR, TQ: SIRSI,
Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.20 11:32:36 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12143 RSA No. 5927 of 2010
DIST: NORTH KANARA. 1E) PUSHPA W/O. RAGHUPATI HEGDE AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PADATTUR, TQ: PALLIPATTU, TAMILNADU. 1F) KAVITA W/O. TIRUMAL HEGDE AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ABBIGADDE, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: NORTH KANARA. 1G) KALPANA W/O. SHRIKANT HEGDE AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KALLARAMANE TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA. 1H) SUMITRA W/O. SEETARAM HEGDE AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O: ADSARA, POST: DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: NORTH KANARA. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE HON’BLE COURT ORDER DATED 09.03.2016)
2. PADMANABHA S/O. GANAPATI HEGDE SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
2A) LALITA KOM PADMANABHA HEGDE AGE: 84 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2B) GANAPATI S/O. PADMANABHA HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
BOTH ARE R/O: ADSARA, PO: DEVISAR, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNDA-581403. 2C) BHAVANI W/O. MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HALDOT, PO: CHIPAGI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581402. - 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12143 RSA No. 5927 of 2010
2D) SUNANDA RAGHUPATI BHAT AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GOKUL HEVAN, L.V. 104-103 TAKHUR COMPLEX, KANDIVALI, EAST MUMBAI-400101. 2E) VINODINI W/O. RAMACHANDRA HEBBAR AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AT AND PO. MANAKI, KUMTA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581362. 2F) RATNA W/O. SHRIKANT BHAT AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: 19/3, A CROSS, JAYADURGA KALIAN MANTAP BACK SIDE J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAXMIPURAM, KURUBARALLI, BENGALURU 560087.
2G) PRAMODA W/O. UMESH HEGDE AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: KODTAGANI, PO: ITAGI, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581322. 2H) GAYATRI W/O. GOPAL HEGDE AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O: JADDIMANE, SANKADAMANE, PO: KODSARA, TQ: SIDDAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-577401. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE HON’BLE COURT ORDER DATED 04.03.2025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) TO R2(B);
R1(C AND E)-APPEAL STAND DISMISSED;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1(A), R1(B), R1(D), R1(F), R1(G), R1(H), R2(A), R2(B), R2(C), R2(D), R2(E), R2(F), R2(G), R2(H))
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED:06-08-2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO:03/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, SIRSI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, FILED
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12143 RSA No. 5927 of 2010
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:26-11-2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO:106/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DN) GADAG, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
The appeal against respondent Nos.1(C) and 1(E) stands dismissed as per the order dated 09.03.2016. In the absence of respondent Nos.1(C) and 1(E), the appeal is not maintainable. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution, as no steps were taken.
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 63