- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4447 RSA No. 986 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O NAGANNA, D/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT DODDAMARAGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 026 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMARA K G., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI. SANNAHAIDEGOWDA S/O LATE HOMBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 2. SMT. SIDDAMMA W/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 3. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA D/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. SMT. SAKKAMMA D/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4447 RSA No. 986 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. SRI RAVI S/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 7. SRI HOMBEGOWDA S/O SANNAHAIDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7 ARE R/AT BADAGALAHUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570026. 8. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O M K THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANDRASHEKARAPURA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572216. 9. SMT. BANASHANKARAMMA W/O M V VENKATANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 15, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, KHILLE MOHALLA, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSORE - 570001. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2022. PASSED IN RA NO.348/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO. 1082/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4447 RSA No. 986 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for fifth 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.: 31