Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49799 (KAR)

SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA v. SRI RAMAIAH

RSA/1703/2022 · 2026-02-02

Ravi V Hosmani

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5881 RSA No. 1703 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1703 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SRI. UMESH P S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SMT. VASANTHA S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 4. SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 5. SRI. NANJUNDA S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SRI. MARIGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA ALL ARE RESIDING AT BADAGALAHUNDI VILLAGE, VARAKODU POST, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5881 RSA No. 1703 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI RAMAIAH S/O LATE SIDDRAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT BADAGALAHUNDI VILLAGE, VARAKONDU POST, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK. PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 692 4/5th CROSS, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSURU. 2. SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE SIDDARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 590, 1st 'A CROSS, NEAR MAHAVEERA SCHOOL, LIC COLONY, SRIRAMPURA , 2nd STAGE, MYSURU …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.08.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.15/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.11.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.71/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5881 RSA No. 1703 of 2022 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. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14