- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3179 RSA No. 259 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. 259 OF 2025 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.PUTTASIDDAMMA @ JANAMMA W/O LATE RACHASHETTY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SURESHA S/O LATE RACHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. NANJA S/O LATE RACHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. SHIVANNA S/O LATE RACHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. ABHILASHA D/O LATE RACHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 6. ANANDA S/O LATE RACHASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NEW EXTENSION CHANDUKATTE MOLE, HARADANAHALLI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK - 571 127 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3179 RSA No. 259 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT.ERAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANANJAASHETTY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA D/O LATE SHIVANANJAASHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE SHIVANANJAASHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 4. SUDHAMANI D/O LATE SHIVANANJAASHETTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O CHENNIPURADAMOLE EXTENSION, CHAMARAJANAGARA TOWN-571 313 …RESPONDENTS (BY SIR M.M.SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.10.2024 PASSED IN RA 35/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHAMARAJANAGARA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN OS NO. 229/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGARA. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3179 RSA No. 259 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fourth 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.: 25