- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3453 RSA No. 1852 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1852 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANAMMA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS SMT. GLORY ESTER D/O LATE E DORESWAMY AGED 65 YEARS 2. SMT. VIOLET MARY D/O LATE E DORESWAMY AGED 62 YEARS 3. SMT. ROSE MARY D/O LATE E DORESWAMY AGED 59 YEARS 4. SMT. DHANASHEELA D/O LATE E DORESWAMY AGED 57 YEARS 5. SMT. PREMALATHA D/O LATE E DORESWAMY AGED 54 YEARS ALL THE APPELLANTS ARE R/AT NO. 13, 5TH CROSS, JAIBHARATHNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 033. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI V B SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3453 RSA No. 1852 of 2022 AND: 1. GURUMURTHY, SINCE DEAD BY LRS GOWRAMMA D/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED 60 YEARS R/A THINDLU VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 2. THE TAHSHILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURAM BENGALURU - 560036 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU 4. THE CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH N M., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED IN RA.NO.53/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2017 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2355/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3453 RSA No. 1852 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Though matter was passed over and called again, there is no representation for appellants. Matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for sixth time. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted for compliance earlier, even on cost, office objections remained un-complied and cost is also not paid. This would indicate that appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10