Basanagouda S/O Channabasappa vs Smt.Parvatevva W/O ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 946 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                            AND

            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.DESAI

               R.F.A. NO.100332/2020 (PAR)


BETWEEN:

1.     BASANAGOUDA
       W/O. CHANNABASAPPA
       @ CHANNABASANAGOUDA NAGANAGOUDRA,
       AGE: 54 YEARS,
       OCC. BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE,

2.     NEELAPPA
       S/O. CHANNABASAPPA
       @ CHANNABASANAGOUDA NAGANAGOUDRA,
       AGE: 52 YEARS,
       OCC. AGRICULTURE,

       BOTH ARE
       R/O. BEVINAMATTI VILLAGE,
       TQ. HUNAGUND 587118,
       DIST. BAGALKOTE.
                                             ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADV.)


AND:

1.     SMT. PARVATEVVA
       W/O. CHANNABASAPPA
       @ CHANNABASANAGOUDA NAGANAGOUDRA,
                            :2:


     AGE: 74 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. BEVINAMATTI VILLAGE,
     NOW R/O. CHINNAPUR (ST)
     TQ. HUNAGUND 587118,
     DIST. BAGALKOT .

2.   HUCCHAVVA
     W/O. MAHANTAPPA TUPPAD,
     AGE: 48 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. CHINNAPUR (ST)
     TQ. HUNAGUND 587118,
     DIST. BAGALKOT .

3.   SMT. LAXMIBAI
     W/O. MALLAPPA DESHETTI,
     AGE: 44 YEARS,
     OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. ANTHARTHANA,
     TQ. KUSHTAGI 584121,
     DIST. KOPPAL.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 READ WITH

SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE

DATED 12.06.2017 PASSED IN O.S. NO.85 OF 2016 ON THE

FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUNGUND, DECREEING THE

SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSI ON.


     THIS   RFA   COMING   ON    FOR   ORDERS   THIS   DAY,

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., DELI VERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   :3:


                              JUDGMENT

Appellants' counsel is absent.

Office objection Nos.3(a) and 3(b) have not been

complied with. Order sheet dated 12.01.2021 clearly

shows that the advocate made a wrong note about

compliance of office objections although the same has not

been attended. This shows that the appellant is not

interested.

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Rsh