- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3965 RSA No. 702 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2025 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, 2. 2(a) SRI. SHIVANANJU, SINCE DECEASED, BY LRS SMT. B. GEETHA, W/O LATE SHIVANANJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2(b) M S. LATHA G.S., D/O LATE SHIVANANJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 2(c) M S. LAVANYA G.S., D/O LATE SHIVANANJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.2(a) TO 2(c) ARE R/A GANGUROO VILLAGE, K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 3. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. RAVI, S/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3965 RSA No. 702 of 2025 5. SMT. RENUKA, D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, W/O NEELAKANTAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT GANGUROO VILLAGE, K. SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 6. SMT. BHARATHI, W/O Y.H.RAJU, D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A. YALIUR VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MANJUNATHA P V., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: SMT. JAYAMMA D/O LATE NANAJEGOWDA D/O SMT. SANNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A UMMADAHALLI VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.1/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.11.2022 PASSED IN OS NO. 354/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3965 RSA No. 702 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, 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.: 40