Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49983 (KAR)

SMT LAKSHMAMMA v. SMT SAVITHRAMMA

RSA/1407/2024 · 2026-01-09

Ravi V Hosmani

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1485 RSA No. 1407 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1407 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE SRI SWAMY NAIKA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SRI VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI SWAMY NAIKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SMT. RADHA D/O LATE SRI SWAMY NAIKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT GUNGRAL CHATRA VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)] AND: 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O SRI RAMANAIK D/O SRI BYRANAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. SRI SHIVARAJU S/O SRI BYRANAIAK AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT MACHANAYANAHALLI HUNSURU TALUK GAVADAGERE HOBLI Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1485 RSA No. 1407 of 2024 MYSURU DISTRICT. 3. SMT. LAKSHMI W/O SRI KRISHNANAIKA D/O SRI BYRANAIKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT THIPPUR VILLAGE K R NAGAR TALUK. 4. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE SRI SHIVARAMANAIK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT HUNDAVADI VILLAGE K R NAGAR TALUK. 5. SRI SIDDARAMA S/O SRI BYRANAIKA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 6. SRI SWAMY S/O SRI BYRANAIK AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESPONDENT NOs.5 & 6 ARE R/AT ANANDUR KOPPAL VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT. 7. SMT. MANCHAMMA W/O SRI BYRANAIK AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT MACHANAYANAHALLI HUNSURU TALUK GAVADAGERE HOBLI MYSURU. 8. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE SRI MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 9. SRI RAMESHA S/O SRI LINGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 10. SMT. PUTTAMMA SINCE DEAD LRS ON RECORD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1485 RSA No. 1407 of 2024 11. SRI MAHADEVA S/O LATE SRI MANCHANAIKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 12. SRI CHANDRANAIKA S/O LATE SRI MANCHANAIKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 13. SRI KUMAR S/O LATE SRI MANCHANAIKA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 14. SRI RAMANAIKA S/O LATE SRI KAKKARANAIKA SINCE DEAD HIS LRS SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE SRI RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 15. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE SRI RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 16. SRI KAKKARANAIKA S/O LATE SRI RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESPONDENT NOs.8 TO 16 ARE R/AT GUNGRAL CHATRA VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND MYSURU DISTRICT. 17. SMT. KARISIDDAMMA W/O LATE SRI RAMANAIKA D/O SRI KAKKARANAIKA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT KESTHUR KOPPAL VILLAGE K R NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT. 18. SRI R SUBRAMANI S/O SRI RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HOSAKOTE CROSS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1485 RSA No. 1407 of 2024 LAKSHMI TRUST, "PUMP HOUSE", GOMMATATIRI ROAD GUNGRAL CHATRA VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 19. SMT. JYOTHI D/O SRI MAHADEVA W/O LATE SRI KAMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 20. SMT. KAVITHA D/O SRI MAHADEVA W/O SRI SHIVAKUMARA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESPONDENT NOs.19 & 20 ARE R/AT GUNGRAL CHATRA VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 21. SMT. MARIYAMMA D/O SRI LINGANAYAKA W/O SRI SIDDANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT HOSARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI HUNSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT. 22. SMT. THAYAMMA D/O SRI MANCHANAYAKA @ KAKARAMANCHANAIKA W/O LATE SRI BYRANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT GUNGRAL CHATRA VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.04.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.343/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1485 RSA No. 1407 of 2024 CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.06.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.1850/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for VII 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.: 98