Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48335 (KAR)

SMT. CHANNAMMA v. SRI. V. T. SUNDAR RAJU

RSA/998/2024 · 2026-01-06

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:862 RSA No. 998 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 998 OF 2024 (DEC) BETWEEN: SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE G. KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A ARAHALLI GUDDADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 205 …APPELLANT (BY SRI B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI. V. T. SUNDAR RAJU S/O LATE THIMMASHETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SMT. LEELAVATHAMMA, W/O V T SUNDAR RAJU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SAVALANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562110. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OFFICE AT 2, 49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:862 RSA No. 998 of 2024 BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADV. FOR C/R1 & R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.10043/2020 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.V IN OS NO.259/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA. 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 V 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.: 121