- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4658 RSA No. 1244 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1244 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUBBAMMA, W/O LATE K SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 2. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O LATE K SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 3. SRI DHANANJAYA S/O LATE K SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. SMT SAVITHA D/O LATE K SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT HONNAKERE VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MURALI M., ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE RAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 2. SMT. SUDHA W/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4658 RSA No. 1244 of 2025 R/AT HONAKERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. 3. SMT SANNATHAYAMMA W/O LATE MARISIDDEGOWDA, AGE ABOUT 85 YEARS, 4. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O LATE MARISIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT APAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, HONAKERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. 5. SMT PUTTAMMA, D/O LATE MARISIDDEGOWDA, W/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT ADAVIKATTE VILLAGE, HONAKERE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. 6. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE MARISIDDEGOWDA, W/O SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT HONAKERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.04.2025 PASSED IN RA NO.1/2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NAGAMANGALA., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SET- ASIDE AND MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 PASSED IN FDP NO.5/2007 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT NAGAMANGALA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4658 RSA No. 1244 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI 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 appellants are not diligent in pursuing appeal. RSA no.1244/2025 is ordered to be de-linked and dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PSG