Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2860 (KAR)

SRI H.M.MUNIYAPPA v. SRI.H.S.NANJUNDAIAH

RSA/1563/2016 · 2026-04-15

E S Indiresh

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20429 RSA No. 1563 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1563 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI. H.M.MUNIYAPPA, S/O MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT HALEHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVAGONDAPPA SUBHASHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SRI.H.S.NANJUNDAIAH, S/O H.N.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, 2. A) H.S.NARASIMHA MURTHY, DEAD BY LRS SMT. VIJAYAMMA, W/O LATE H.S.NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, B) SRI. H.N.KIRAN KUMAR, S/O LATE H.S.NARASIMHA MURTHY, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20429 RSA No. 1563 of 2016 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, THE APPELLANT NO.1 & 2(a) & (b) ARE R/AT HALEHALLI VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI, GOURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 3. SRI. H.S.NAGARAJA RAO, S/O LATE H.N.SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT SAPTHAGIRI BADAVANE, SHETTYHALLI EXTENSION, 5TH CROSS, TUMKUR CITY - 572 113. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYA N ARADHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2(a & b); SRI.C.L.N.MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.7.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.87/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.4.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.31/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GOURIBIDANUR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20429 RSA No. 1563 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT As there was no representation on behalf of the appellant in the morning session, the matter was passed over. Thereafter, when the matter is called for the second time, even now there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 2. The counsel appearing for the respondent is present. 3. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SNB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29