Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46238 (KAR)

SMT. VOSURU AKKAMMA v. M. VENKATACHALAPATHY

RSA/149/2024 · 2026-01-09

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1483 RSA No. 149 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) SMT. VOSURU AKKAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS., MANJULA W/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. RAMASANDRAM, PUNGANUR MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 247, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1(b) SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O. RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. GUTTAHALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI-563 127, MULBAGAL TALUK. 1(c) SMT. SHARADA W/O. MAHENDRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. BALAJI COLONY, TIRUPATHI TOWN-517 501, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1(d) SMT. SATHYAVANI W/O. MURALIKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. KUMBARAPALYA, MULBAGAL TALUK-563 131. 1(e) SMT. RAMADEVI W/O SRINIVASA, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1483 RSA No. 149 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. VARTHUR KODI, BANGALROE-560 087. 1(f) SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. GUNIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131. 1(g) SRI. SRINIVASA S/O LATE AKKAMMA AND H. VENKATAPPA NAIDU, R/O CHELAMAGALA, PALAMANER TALUK, CHITTOOR TALUK-571 408, ANDHRA PRADESH. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI MUNI REDDY M N., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. 1(a) M. VENKATACHALAPATHY S/O. LATE KOTHAPALLI MUNISWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY LRS., SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1900, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 2. SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1900, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 3. SMT. BHAVANI W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1483 RSA No. 149 of 2024 MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 4. SMT. KAMAKSHI W/O. SRI. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8-457, TOTAPALYA, GANDHI ROAD, CHITTOOR-571 001, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. SRI. MUNINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO. 1900, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 6. SMT. VISHALAKSHI D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO. 1900, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 7. SMT. GANGARAPURA MUNEMMA W/O. SRI. GUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT THURLAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PEDDAPANJANI MANDALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517 408, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. KUMARI ANITHA D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 9. KUMARI RAMADEVI D/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1483 RSA No. 149 of 2024 KOLAR DISTRICT. 10. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. SRI. D. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 11. SRI. THIPPAIAH. M. N. S/O. SRI. M. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. 12. SRI. TEJARAMANNA S/O. SRI. T. M. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GUNTIGANTIPALYA, MULBAGAL TOWN-563 131, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.04.2018 PASSED IN RA NO.14/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.10.2013 PASSED IN OS NO. 686/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR (ITINERATING AT MULBAGAL). THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1483 RSA No. 149 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for VI 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.: 86