- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14998 RSA No. 888 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.888 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: KULLEGOWDA, DEAD BY LRs. 1. SAHADEVA 2. K. PURUSHOTHAMA THIMMAMMA (DELETED BEFORE THE LOWER APPELLATE COURT) 3. CHIKKAMMA 4. SHANTHAMMA 5. CHANNAMMA ALL ARE MAJORS, APELLANT NOS.1, 2, 4 & 5 ARE THE SONS & DAUGHTERS OF KULLEGOWDA, APELLANT NO.3 WIFE OF KULLEGOWDA, APPELLANTS 1, 2 & 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NEMBINAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK. APELLANT NO.4 IS RESIDENT OF ABALAVADI, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14998 RSA No. 888 of 2010 APPELLANT NO.5 IS RESIDENT OF SHIVAPURA, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI M.S. GOPAL AND SRI M.G. RUKMINI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NARASA @ KARISHETTY S/O NARASEGOWDA @ BUDEGOWDA, MAJOR, 2. MANCHANNA S/O NARASEGOWDA @ BUDEGOWDA, MAJOR, BOTH ARE R/O. NEMBINAYAKANA HALLI, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.S. MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE & SRI S. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATES) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2009 PASSED IN R.A.NO.39/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2005 PASSED IN O.S.NO.104/1991 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) MANDYA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14998 RSA No. 888 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT There is no representation on behalf of the appellants. 2. This Court on 05.03.2026, noting the absence of the appellants’ counsel, directed the matter to be listed under the caption ‘dismissal’. 3. Today i.e., 12.03.2026, the appeal is listed under the caption “dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents is present. 4. The Regular Second Appeal is of the year 2010. 5. It, therefore, appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37