Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49812 (KAR)

NAGARAJU v. NINGAMMA @ SANNAMMA

RSA/1771/2023 · 2026-01-06

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:855 RSA No. 1771 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. 1771 OF 2023 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. NINGE GOWDA S/O CHANNAIAH AGED 56 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT CHIKKAMANDYA VILLAGE MANDYA TALUK DIST MANDYA 571 401 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHANTKUMAR NAGAYYA, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. NINGAMMA @ SANNAMMA, DEAD BY LRS DEVARAJU S/O SIDDEGOUDA R/AT SHANKALGERE VILLAGE MALUR HOBLI CHANANPATNA TALUK. 2. SMT.PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAIAH ALIS DODDANATHA 3. SRI SURESH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ DODDANATHA Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:855 RSA No. 1771 of 2023 4. MALLIKAJA S/O SIDDAIAH @ DODDNATHA 5. MAHADEVA @ BHOTHAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAIAH @ DODDANATHA ALL ARE R/AT CHIKKAMANDYA KASABA HOBLI MANDYA TALUK. 6. CHIKKATHAYAMMA W/O SHIVALINGAIAHA R/AT DOOR NO 488 RAILWAY STATION ROD WARD NO 1, PETE BEEDI MANDYA. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.08.2011 PASSED IN RA NO.225/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2010 PASSED IN OS NO.114/2000 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM, MANDYA. 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:855 RSA No. 1771 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.: 107