1 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3202 RSA No. 188 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. MUDAPPA SON OF LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NEELAGIRHALLI VILLAGE KYSAMABALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563113. A. SMT. RAJAMMA L.R'S (A) WIFE OF LATE MUDAPPA @ GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KAMASAMUDRAM, KYSAMABALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT- 563113. B. SMT. CHINNAMMAIAH DAUGHTER OF LATE MUDAPPA @ GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT KAMASAMUDRAM, KYSAMABALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT- 563113. C. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY SON OF LATE MUDAPPA @ GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT KAMASAMUDRAM KYSAMABALI HOBLI KGF TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563113. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka 2 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3202 RSA No. 188 of 2025 C. SMT. CHOWDAMMA SON OF LATE MUDAPPA @ GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT KAMASAMUDRAM KYSAMABALLI HOBLI K.G.F. TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563113 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUNIL T., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT. VENKATAMMA WIFE OF CHICKANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NEELAGIRHALLI VILLAGE KYSAMABALLI HOBLI. K.G.F. TALUK, 2. SMT. BAGYAMMA VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NEELAGIRHALLI VILLAGE, KYSAMABALLI HOBLI, K.G.F. TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.180/2023 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KGF., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.10.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.269/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, KGF. 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:3202 RSA No. 188 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth 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.: 90