- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1419 RSA No. 783 of 2023 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. 783 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. K. T. GOPALAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS, R/AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 013. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.C. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHIKKAPAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, R/AT THUBAGERE VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 2. SRI. MUNISHAMAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 3. SRI. HANUMAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1419 RSA No. 783 of 2023 4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE DODDAPAIAH, W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. SRI. AMBAREESH, S/O LATE DODDAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT RAJAGHATTA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. - 561 203. 6. SMT. KRISHNAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 7. SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT ANGHATTA VILLAGE, MANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKBALLAPURA DISTRICT. 8. SMT. SHANTHAMMA, W/O NAGAPPA, D/O HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT BIDALURU VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1419 RSA No. 783 of 2023 BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 164. 9. SRI. ANANDA MURTHY, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 10. SMT. CHINNAMMAIAH, D/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 11. SRI. ASHOK, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 12. SRI. NAVEEN, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 13. SMT. AMRUTHA, D/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 14. SRI. MURTHY, SO LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 15. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 16. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, 17. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1419 RSA No. 783 of 2023 W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 18. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 19. SRI. ANANDA, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 20. SRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA, S/O MUNIANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 21. SMT. OBALAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 22. SRI. ANJANEYA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 23. SMT. CHIKKAKALAMMA, W/O KAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 24 ARE RESIDING AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST - 562 013. 24. SRI. MAHAVEER CHAND, S/O MOHANLAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1419 RSA No. 783 of 2023 NO.9, 1ST CROSS, CSI COMPOUND, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. 25. SRI. C. BHARATH KUMAR, S/O CHANDMULL, AGED 80 YEARS, NO.27, 1ST MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE - 560 018. 26. SRI. T.R. SATHISH HEGDE, S/O T.G. RAMANNA HEGDE, AGED 82 YEARS, G-8, PALACE ORCHARD APARTMENT, 9TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 025. 27. SRI. LIAQUATH ALI KHAN, SADATH ALI KHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, NO.2/3, SENA HAYES ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025. 28. SMT. CHIKKA AKKAYAMMA, W/O KAKEPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 29. SMT. ANJINAMMA, W/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 30. SRI. KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1419 RSA No. 783 of 2023 31. SRI. SANJEEVAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.29 TO 32 ARE RESIDING AT KUDUVATHI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DIST - 562 103. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.03.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.52/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.02.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.111/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Sri B.C.Venkatesh, learned counsel for appellant submits that he has no instructions from appellant. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 80