- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3991 RSA No. 65 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. AKKAYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS AND ALREADY ON RECORD SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. SRI MUNIBYRAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 3. SMT. NANJAMMA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT THALLAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. SMT. BYAMMA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DODDAKORATTI VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ALL REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, B C MUNEGOWDA, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3991 RSA No. 65 of 2025 S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH H.M., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI D.RAMAKRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIDASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 2. THE THASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.05/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.12.2017 PASSED IN OS NO.998/1995 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3991 RSA No. 65 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for sixth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellants were directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court hours. However, there is no representation and office objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 91