SMT G VENKATADASARI W/O GURUVANABOVI v. SMT MUNIVEERAMMA W/O CHINNANABOVI
RSA/506/2008 · 2026-01-23
Jyoti M
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 47165 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 47165 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4047 RSA No. 506 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN:
1. SMT G.VENKATADASARI W/O. GURUVANABOVI SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS
1(A) LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
1(B) C.V.EARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
1(C) C.V.RAJAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
1(D) C.V.CHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
1(E) C.V.NARAYANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
1(F) C.V.RATHANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
1(G) C.V.SUGHANAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1(A) IS THE WIDOW AND 1(B) TO 1(G) ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE VENKATADASARI, ALL ARE RESIDING AT CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4047 RSA No. 506 of 2008
NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563133. …APPELLANTS (ABSENT)
AND:
1. SMT. MUNIVEERAMMA W/O CHINNANABOVI SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS
1(A) SMT. GURAMMA DEAD BY LRS
1(A)(I) SRI. RAMAPPA, S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA AND LATE GURAMMA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE, DODDAVALLABI (POST), NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK. 1(A)(II) SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O. LATE GURAMMA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, MANGASANDRA VILLAGE, BAGGALI POST, VOKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK. 1(B) SMT. MUNIYAMMA, W/O. RAMAPPA, MAJOR, NAYAKARAHALLI @ PUTAGOSANAHALLI, HARATI (POST), KOLAR TALUK
2. SRI MUNISWAMY S/O MUNIYAPPA @ MATADHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SRI CHIKKACHOWDAPPA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4047 RSA No. 506 of 2008
4. SRI H.RAMAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT CHOKKAPURA VILLAGE NARSAPURA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUHAMMAD IRFAN ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARISH H.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3 AND R1(A);
SRI. VASANTH V.FERNANDES, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B)' R1(A)(I)-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 06.12.2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1(A)(II) IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER The appeal is listed today for final hearing and the names of the appellants are printed/ shown in the cause list. The names of the appellants are called out thrice in the open Court, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants, either personally or through video conferencing.
The appellants are absent. - 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4047 RSA No. 506 of 2008
Sri.Muhammad Irfan Ali., counsel on behalf of Sri.Harish.H.V., for respondents 2 and 3 & 1(A) and Sri.Vasanth V.Fernandes., counsel for respondent No.1(B) have appeared in person. 2. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the appeal was listed on 28.04.2025, on that day, counsel Smt.Veena Kumari.M., was permitted to retire from the case and the registry was directed to print the names of the appellants in the cause list. The appeal was again listed on 21.01.2026, as the names of the appellants were not shown properly and all the appellants names were not shown in the cause list, hence, the registry concerned was directed to print all the names of the appellants in the cause list. Accordingly, the appeal is listed today by printing the names of the appellants in the cause list. As could be seen from the appeal papers, the appeal is filed in 2008. Now we are in 2026. The appeal is pending from eighteen years. As already noted above, the names of the appellants are called out thrice in the open Court, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants, either personally or through video conferencing. The appellants
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4047 RSA No. 506 of 2008
have not engaged counsel to represent them in the Court. It appears that the appellants are not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. 3. Because of dismissal of the appeal, interim order, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1