Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27636 (KAR)

SRI.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH A.C. v. SMT.T.R. VIMALA

RSA/1077/2025 · 2026-07-09

V Srishananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35151 RSA No. 1077 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1077 OF 2025 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH A.C. S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SMT. PADMA S.V. W/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH A.C. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT ALEMARADODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 159. 3. SMT. CHAITRA C. D/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH A.C. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.30, NEAR NETAJI POPULAR SCHOOL, MALLESHWARA LAYOUT, IJOORU EXTENSION, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35151 RSA No. 1077 of 2025 4. SMT. NETHRA C. D/O CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT SINGARAJAPURA VILLAGE, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 138. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: SMT. T.R. VIMALA W/O LATE T.K. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.72, MYLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, THITTAMARANAHALLI DAKHLE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.03.2025 PASSED IN RA 33/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.05.2020 PASSED IN OS NO. 206/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35151 RSA No. 1077 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER None appears for the appellants. Despite granting sufficient time, office objections are not complied. Hence, appeal stands dismissed for non prosecution. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36