Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48568 (KAR)

SMT. BHAGYAMMA v. MR. M. L. SHIVANNA

RSA/1211/2022 · 2026-01-09

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1459 RSA No. 1211 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT GUDDAHALLI VILLAGE, HAGALAHALLI DAKALE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 128. 2. SMT. GEETHA W/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT KALLIGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 119. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VAGEESH G M., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. MR. M. L. SHIVANNA S/O LATE LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. MR. M. L. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1459 RSA No. 1211 of 2022 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MAREGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE, KOOTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, PIN - 562 201. 3. MR. RAMAIAH S/O REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT ARALIMARADADODDI VILLAGE, KOTTAGAL HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 108. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.04.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.74/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANGARA. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.319/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1459 RSA No. 1211 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 5th time. Matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation. Neither office objections are complied nor cost imposed for extension of time is paid. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5