Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46475 (KAR)

M B NARAYANAPPA v. MADA NAIKA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ERAPPA

RSA/192/2024 · 2026-01-29

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5045 RSA No. 192 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2024 (INJ) BETWEEN: M B NARAYANAPPA, S/O BASAVA NAIKA, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O MALESHANKARA VILLAGE - 577211, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. MADA NAIKA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS ERAPPA S/O MADA NAIKA, AGE 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O SIGLU VILLAGE - 577 452, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 2. SMT. MUDDAMMA D/O MADA NAIKA, W/O BHAIRA NAIKA, AGE 61 YEARS, R/O SIGLU VILLAGE - 577 452, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O MADA NAIKA, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5045 RSA No. 192 of 2024 W/O DURGA NAIKA, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O SIGLU VILLAGE - 577452, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. 4. SMT. MANJAMMA D/O MADA NAIKA, W/O RAMA NAIKA, AGE 55 YEARS, R/O GERU BISU VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.10.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.45/19 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA,DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.03.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.77/09 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5045 RSA No. 192 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 6th time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, appellant was 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 appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22