Karnataka High Court
Sri B K Hanumanthappa vs Rangappa on 8 December, 2021
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
RSA.786/2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.786/2010
BETWEEN:
SRI B. K. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O KARIYAMMA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRS:
1(A) SMT. RAJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O LATE B.K.HANUMANTHAPPA,
1(B) B.H.HARISH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
S/O LATE B.K.HANUMANTHAPPA,
BOTH ARE R/AT BORASADNRA VILLAGE,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TQ, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
1(C) SMT. B.H.KAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
D/O LATE B.K.HANUMANTHAPPA,
W/O SRI B.D.NARAYAN,
R/AT BEEMANAKUNTE VILLAGE,
KATTGARAHALLI POST,
DUDDERI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.S.RAMESH, ADV.-ABSENT)
AND:
1. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
RSA.786/2010
2
2. THIMMANNA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
4. BOMMANNA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
5. RAJAPPA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
6. SMT. RANGAMMA
D/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
7. SMT SANNARANGAMMA
D/O LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT
BORASANDRA VILLAGE,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TQ.-32. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.K.BHASKARAIAH, ADV. FOR
R1, R2, R4 TO R7;
V/O DTD 13.08.2018 APPEAL ABATED QUA R3)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 8.1.2010 PASSED IN R.A.NO.10/2009 ON THE FILE THE
CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) SIRA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL & SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DTD 15.1.2009 PASSED
IN O.S.NO.377/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN) & JMFC., SIRA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA.786/2010
3
JUDGMENT
Matter called twice. There is no representation for
the appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
submits that the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed
insofar as the relief of declaration of title and
permanent injunction. However, the relief of mandatory
injunction was rejected with an observation that the
plaintiffs are entitled to get the market value of the
encroached portion of the property by the defendant
and the defendant was directed to pay cost of
encroached portion to the plaintiffs within three months
from the date of decree. It was further observed by the
trial court that if the defendant fails to pay the costs of
encroached portion, the plaintiffs are at liberty to take
action to demolish the building as per law. The said
judgment and decree was not questioned by the
defendant.
RSA.786/2010
3. Insofar as the rejection of plaintiffs' prayer with
regard to relief of mandatory injunction, the plaintiffs
had filed R.A.No.10/2009 before the first appellate
court and the first appellate court had allowed the
appeal and thereby the suit was decreed in its entirety.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
further submits that the defendant has neither
complied with the order passed by the trial court nor
challenged the same. He also submits that for the last
several dates, there has been no representation on
behalf of the appellants. He submits that this court
had dismissed the appeal as against respondent No.3
as abated by order dated 13.08.2018 and till date, no
application has been filed to recall the said order and
therefore, as on date the appeal stands dismissed as
abated as against respondent No.3.
5. A perusal of the order sheet maintained by this
Court would go to show that for the last five dates of
hearing, there has been no representation on behalf of
RSA.786/2010
the appellants. It appears that the appellants are not
interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, this
Court has no other option but to dismiss the appeal for
non-prosecution.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
