- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:853 RSA No. 1641 of 2023 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. 1641 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NINGAPPA S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SRI BASAVARAJU S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/A BALEATTIGUPPE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 434. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI RAJANNA C., ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. SRI S VENKATESH S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/A SUNKATONNUR VILLAGE, MELUKOTE HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571 431. 2. SMT CHIKKOLAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/A HIREMARALI HOSOOR VILLAGE, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:853 RSA No. 1641 of 2023 PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571434. 3. SR NARAYANAGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A HIREMARALI HOSOOR VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA VILLAGE, MANDYA DISTRICT 571434. 4. SMT INDIRAMMA W/O SRI SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A URAMARA KASALAGERE VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571445. 5. SMT H C SHOBHA W/O S D KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT KRISHNANAGARA, PADVAPURA TOWN AND TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT 571434 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2023. PASSED IN RA No.5032/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNA) DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.03.2017 PASSED IN OS No.125/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PANDAVAPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:853 RSA No. 1641 of 2023 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.: 105