- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47335 RSA No. 1277 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1277 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YASHODAMMA, W/O SRI. MUNISWAMY, D/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT H.GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, DUGGASANDRA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131. 2. SMT. V. PARVATHAMMA, W/O SRI. P.M.RAMU, D/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT NO.47, ‘A’ BLOCK, 1ST CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, MYSURU-570003. 3. SMT. PADMAMMA, W/O LATE NARAYANAGOWDA, D/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.174, 9TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570008. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 - ABSENT) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47335 RSA No. 1277 of 2023 AND: 1. SRI. G.V. BEERANNA, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT C/O DINNAHALLI SEENAPPPA, DOOR NO.6783, ’BYRESHWARA PRASANNA NILAYA’, THYAGARAJA COLONY, MULBAGAL TOWN, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.64/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.08.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.244/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, ITINERATING AT MULBAGAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for the seventh time for non- compliance of the office objections. This matter is called twice both in the morning session and in the afternoon session and there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Inspite of this Court directed to produce the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47335 RSA No. 1277 of 2023 acknowledgment for having notified the appellants, the learned counsel for the appellants has not produced the same. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6