- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:845 RSA No. 1760 of 2024 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. 1760 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.SHEKRAMMA LATE ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O BEGURAIAH STEET TARIKER POST AND TALUK CHIKAMANGALUR DISTSRICT-577 228. 2. SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O YOGESHAPPA AGED 69 YEARS AGRICULTURIST SHIVANI VILLAGE SHIVANI HOBLI AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-585 411. 3. K S RANGANATH S/O LATE SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE, SHIVANI HOBLI AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-585 411. …APPELLANTS [BY SRI KAMARAJU, ADVOCATE (AB)] AND: 1. SRI DEVEERAPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE SHIVANI HOBLI AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-585 411. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:845 RSA No. 1760 of 2024 2. SRI ANJANAPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE SHIVANI HOBLI AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-585 411. 3. SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE SANNAIAH AGEDA BOUT 70 YEARS AGRUCULTURIST SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS (A) BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE SHIVANI HOLBI AJJAMPRUA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-585 411. (B) HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE SANNAIAH R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE SHIVANI HOBLI AJJAMPURA TALUK CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-585 411. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2024. PASSED IN RA NO. 6/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.153/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE. 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:845 RSA No. 1760 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for IV 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.: 77