Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 48982 (KAR)

SRI. SAGANAIAH v. SRI. MULLAIAH

RSA/1162/2024 · 2026-01-06

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:868 RSA No. 1162 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. 1162 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SAGANAIAH S/O LATE SRI KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. RANGAIAH S/O LATE SRI. KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI. HONNAIAH S/O LATE SRI KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4. SMT. NAGAMMA D/O LATE SRI KENCHAIAH W/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT BILEKALLU VILLAGE KURUANGI POST KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. 5. SMT. YASHODA W/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A BYRAMAKKI SANGAMESHWARAPETE POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 6. SRI DHARMARAJ S/O SIDDAIAH Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:868 RSA No. 1162 of 2024 7. AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. GANGAMMA W/O DHARMARAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 8. SMT. SHOBHA D/O DHARMARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 9. SMT. PAVITHRA D/O DHARMARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS APPELLANTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE R/A HIREMAGALURU JYOTHINAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 10. SRI. RAMESH S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A HIREMAGALURU JYOTHINAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 11. SMT. BHAGYA @ KUSUMA W/O RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS COOLIE R/A KARGADA VILLAGE AND POST, BELUR TLAUK HASSAN DISTRICT (APPELLANT NO.11 WAS DEAD SAME WAS REPORTED LR APPLICATION WAS REJECTED HENCE LR S ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD) 12. SMT. PREMA W/O KENCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS COOLIE R/A DANTARAMAKKI EXTENSION JYOTHINAGARA POST - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:868 RSA No. 1162 of 2024 CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SWAROOP S., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. SRI. MULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RETIRED EMPLOYEE 2. SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 3. SRI. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 4. SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE PUTAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT HIREMAGALURU VILLAGE JYOTHINAGARA POST KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK 5. SMT. RUKMINI D/O LATE PUTAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O KARADAL VILLAGE AND POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT 6. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O LATE H MULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 7. SRI. H M SHIVANNA S/O LATE MULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 8. SRI H M MRUTHUNJAYA S/O LATE H .MULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:868 RSA No. 1162 of 2024 9. SRI H M BASAVARAJ S/O LATE H MULLAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 6 TO 9 ARE R/AT AMBEDKAR NAGAR N R PURA CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT 10. SRI RAJU S/O LATE DODDAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 11. SRI. ANNAIAH S/O LATE DODDAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR S 12. SRI. SHIVANNA S/O LATE DODDAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEAR S RESPONDENT NO.10 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT BLUE MOUNTAIN ESTATE SHANTHAVERI POST TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 13. SRI. SIDDAPAP @ SIDDAIAH S/O JANAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O HOSPIAL ROAD 1ST CROSS, HIREMAGALURU CHIKKAMAGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A MADHUSUDHAN RAO, ADV. FOR C/R1 [CP NO.15172/2022]) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.08.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.60/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE (DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE), FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMGALURU, DISMISSING - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:868 RSA No. 1162 of 2024 THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.12.2020 PASSED IN OS.No.56/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. 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, 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.: 140