Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 47875 (KAR)

SMT K R RATHNAMMA v. SMT MUNIRAMAKKA

RSA/939/2022 · 2026-01-23

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4018 RSA No. 939 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2022 (SP) BETWEEN: SMT K R RATHNAMMA W/O P.SUBBANNA AGED 62 YEARS, R/AT KODEGANDLU CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SMT MUNIRAMAKKA W/O LATE R.K.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 68 YEARS 2. SRI.R.M.SUBRAMANI S/O LATE R.K.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, 3. SRI.R.M.RAVI S/O LATE R.K.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 40 YEARS, 4. SMT.JAYALAKSHAMMA W/O NARAYANASWAMY D/O LATE R.K.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 48 YEARS 5. SMT.VANI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4018 RSA No. 939 of 2022 W/O DEVARAJU D/O LATE R.K.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 43 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT K.RAGHUTTAHALLI AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK. 6. SMT.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O K.R.SHIVALINGAREDDY D/O LATE R.K.MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT KATTIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTAHALLI POST, CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.03.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.103/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.42/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT CHINTAMANI. THIS APPEAL, 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:4018 RSA No. 939 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Matter is listed for non-compliance of office objections for VII time. It is seen that on 28.11.2023 further time was granted on cost. But, neither cost is paid nor office objections are complied by appellant. This would indicate that appellant is not diligently pursuing appeal. 2. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5