Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49104 (KAR)

MARULASIDAPPA v. BASAMMA W/O BASAPPA DEAD BY LRS

RSA/1354/2022 · 2026-01-30

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5330 RSA No. 1354 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1354 OF 2022 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: MARULASIDAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OCC AGRICULURIST R/O IGOOR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 512. …APPELLANT (BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. BASAMMA W/O BASAPPA DEAD BY LRS PRAKASH S/O BASAPPA MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST 2. NAGARAJ S/O BASAPPA MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST 3. SHEKARAPPA S/O BASAPPA MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST 4. UMESH S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 5. SAVITA D/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5330 RSA No. 1354 of 2022 RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT IGOOR VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 512. 6. GOWRAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK - 577 002. 7. INDIRAMMA W/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O DAGGI BASAPURA VILLAGE HARAPAHANALLI TALUK - 583 131. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.04.2022 PASSED IN RA.No.87/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.06.2015 PASSED IN OS No.105/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. 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:5330 RSA No. 1354 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Though, case was passed over and called again, there is no representation. Despite sufficient opportunities, office objections have not been complied, even cost ordered was not paid. This would indicate that appellant is not diligent in pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9