- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3186 RSA No. 608 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. 608 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI BASAVALINAGAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/A KUDURU VILLAGE, KUDURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT [BY SRI DHANANJAYA S.B., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O SHIVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 2. SMT. DAKSHYANAMMA, D/O SHIVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. SMT.POORNIMA D/O SHIVARAJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT.RATHNAMMA W/O SHIVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. SMT. UMA D/O SHIVARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KUDURU VILLAGE, KUDURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3186 RSA No. 608 of 2025 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 6. SMT. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE SIDDAMMA/HANUMANTHALAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT HALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKUPPE POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. 7. SRL. NANDEESHA K.L., S/O LATE SIDDAMMA, HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.937, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, HMT LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073. 8. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 9. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.8 & 9 ARE R/AT NO.36, 5TH MAIN ROAD, HEGGANAHALLI POST, LAKSHMANANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.11/2022 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.01.2022 PASSED IN OS NO. 217/2011 ON THE FILE OF C/C. II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3186 RSA No. 608 of 2025 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: 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, 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 AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48