Karnataka High Court
Smt.Somavva vs Chandrappa on 17 February, 2022
Bench: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, S.Rachaiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
RFA NO.100081/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SOMAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA
CHINNAGUDI, AGE 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. UKKUNDA, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
2. NAGARAJ S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA CHINNAGUDI,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. UKKUNDA, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
.. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI AND
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O. GULAPPA @ BASAVARAJAPPA
CHINNAGUDI, AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
2. DODDAVEERAPPA S/O. GULAPPA @
BASAVARAJAPPA CHINNAGUDI,
AGE 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
RFA No.100081/2016
2
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
3. SANNAVEERAPPA S/O. GULAPPA
@ BASAVARAJAPPA CHINNAGUDI,
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
4. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA BANNIKOD,
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD CHECK POST,
OPP. KUMARAPATNAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
5. SHAMBHULINGAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA BANNIKOD,
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD CHECK POST, OPPOSITE,
KUMARAPATNAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
6. SMT. SAVITRAVVA W/O. KARABASAPPA GUTTUR,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. OLD CHECK POST OPPOSITE,
KUMARAPATNAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
7. SANNAPPA S/O. VEERAPPA BANNIKOD,
AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. OLD CHECK POST OPPOSITE,
KUMARAPATNAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
8. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. KARABASAVVA GUTTUR,
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. OLD CHECK POST OPPOSITE,
KUMARAPATNAM, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
9. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O. HALAPPA
MARIYAPPALAVAR, AGE 46 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
RFA No.100081/2016
3
HAVERI DISTRICT.
SHIVAPPA S/O. KURUVATTEPPA CHINNAGUDI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
10. SMT. SHANTHAVVA W/O. SIVAPPA CHINNAGUDI,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. UKKUND, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
11. MALLESHAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA CHINNAGUDI,
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. UKKUND, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. PARAMESHARAPPA CHANNALLI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.RS.
12. MUPPANNA S/O. PARAMESHAPPA CHANNALLI,
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BANNIHATTI, TQ. BYADAGI,
DISTRICT HAVERI.
13. NEELAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA HOOLIHALLI,
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
14. SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O. TIRAKAPPA KADARI,
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSHEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
15. SMT. HOOVAKKA W/O. NAGARAJAPPA HADADI,
AGE 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
16. DAYANAND S/O. DODDABASAPPA HALLALLI,
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. AREMALLAPUR, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
RFA No.100081/2016
4
17. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. KURUVATTEPPA
CHINNAGUDI, AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL,
R/O. UKKUNDA, TQ. RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
.. RESPONDENTS
(SRI. M.V.HIREMATH AND SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH,
ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R3;
V/C/O. DTD. 28.01.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4, R5 R7
HELD SUFFICIENT;
V/C/O. DTD. 06.10.2020, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R13 AND R15
HELD SUFFICIENT AND APPEAL AGAINST R9 AND R17 IS
DISMISSED AS ABATED;
NOTICE TO R6, R8, R10, R11, R12, R14, R16 ARE SERVED AND
UN-REPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.12.2015 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.79/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, RANEBENNUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY,
Dr.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appears in this matter.
2. No reasons are forthcoming either for non-
appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants or
for non-filing of the paper book.
RFA No.100081/2016
3. A perusal of the order-sheet would go to
show that, in this appeal of the year 2016, in spite of
granting sufficient opportunities, even as finally also, the
appellants have neither filed the paper book, nor shown
any reason for non-filing of the paper book. As such, the
appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution, as well for
non-filing of the paper book.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*Svh/-
