- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42133 RFA No. 99 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT YASHODAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA D/O ALTE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RA/T NO. 488, RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILALGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 2. SMT. NEELAMMA W/O NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R/AT NO.22,KUMBALAHALLI VILLAGE HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT) ) AND: M NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O ALTE MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. PAPAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE M. NAGARAJU 2. N. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE M. NAGARAJU BOTH ARE R/AT HORAMAVU VILALGE AND POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE 43. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42133 RFA No. 99 of 2023 3. M. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. RAMADASA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R-3 & R-4 ARE R/AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE AND POST, K.R. PURAM HOBLI BANGLARLE EAST TALUK. 5. MUNIYELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGLAORE EAST TALUK. 6. PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O LATE PAPANNA R/AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BANGLAORE EAST TALUK. THYAGARAJU (DEAD BY HIS L.R) SMT. KAMALAMMA (DEFENDENT NO.7 WHO IS ALREADY ON RECORD 7. SMT. KAMALAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O THYAGARAJU 8. P. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE M. PAPAIAH R-7 & 8 ARE R/AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE AND POST K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. 9. MEDAM RAMASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42133 RFA No. 99 of 2023 W/O CHINNA SUBBA REDDY NO.68, 10TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS NAGARA COLONY, HORAMAVU VILALGE BANASAWADI POST BANGLAORE - 560 043. 10. SMR. GINIDEVI TAINWALA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS W/O M.P TINEWALA R/AT NO.44, GOWRI NIKETHAN ROBBIBNSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE 560 005. 11. RAMESH KUMAR TAINWALA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O LATE N.P TAINAWALA. 12. SRI. DEEPAK KUMAR TAINWALA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O ALTE N.P TAINAWALA R-11 & R-12 ARE RA/T NO. 44, ROBERTSON ROAD, FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE 560 005. 13. ANIL KUMAR TAINWALA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE N.P TAINAWALA 14. LALITH KISHORE TAINWALA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/OLATE N.P TAINAWALA R- 13 & 14 ARE R/AT ANIL VILLA MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGAR, NEAR WATER TANK BELLARY. 15. SMT. GLORY VICTOR W/O. S. VICTOR ROOP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42133 RFA No. 99 of 2023 RA/T NO.183, 2ND CROSS NEHRU ROAD, KAMMANAHALLI BANGALORE - 560 084. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.A. DEVANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-9 & R-15 SRI. P.S. RAJENDRA ADVOCATE, FOR R-11 TO R-14 R-3, R-7 & R-8 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED: 03.09.2025, APPEAL AGAINST R-19 IS ABATED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.11.2022 PASSED IN OS.No.6425/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV ADDITIONAL CITY AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT On the last date of hearing i.e.,13.10.2025, the following peremptory order was passed by this Court:- Heard learned counsel appearing for respondents 9 and 15 on I.A.1/2024 and I.A.2/2024. Learned counsel for the appellants remained absent though the matter was called out both in the pre-lunch session and post-lunch session. A week's time is granted to take steps in respect of unserved respondents. If needful is not done within a period of one week from today, re-list on 24.10.2025 at 2.30 p.m. for dismissal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42133 RFA No. 99 of 2023 2. Learned counsel for respondents 9 to 15 is present physically, while learned counsel for the appellants remained absent both physically and virtually and has not appeared before the Court. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and non- taking of steps in relation to un-served respondents as directed by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 13.10.2025, this Court has left with no option but to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Liberty is however reserved in favour of the appellants to seek revival / restoration of the appeal, if they are so advised. Registry is directed to transmit the Trial court records back to the Trial court forthwith without any delay. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.