Karnataka High Court
Malappa S/O Maritammappa ... vs Smt.Jakkkavva W/O Basavanneppa ... on 18 February, 2022
Bench: Dr. H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, S.Rachaiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
R.F.A. NO.100618/2019
BETWEEN
1. MALAPPA S/O MARITAMMAPPA AMARSHETTI,
AGE: ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
TQ/DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. CHANNAVVA W/O MALAPPA AMARSHETTI,
AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
TQ/DIST: DHARWAD.
3. MAHESH @ MARITAMMAPPA
S/O MALAPPA AMARSHETTI,
AGE: ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI, TQ/DIST: DHARWAD.
4. TAMMANNA S/O MALAPPA AMARSHETTI,
AGE: ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI, TQ/DIST: DHARWAD.
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN G. KULKARNI, ADV.)
R.F.A.No.100618/2019
2
AND
1. SMT.JAKKKAVVA W/O BASAVANNEPPA KAMPLI,
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O SANGATIKOPPA, TQ KALAGHATAGI,
DIST DHARWAD.
2. SMT. SAVAKKA W/O CHANNABASAPPA SULLAD,
AGE: ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GANESHPETH, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SMT. DYAMAVVA
W/O BASAVANNEPPA SATYAPPANAVAR,
AGE: ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: PUDAKALAKATTI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
4. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O BASAPPA BENNY,
AGE: ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AKKI ONI, SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA S/O RAMAPPA SHINGADE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KELAGERI,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
6. SRI. NINGAPPA S/O GULAPPA BYAHATTI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
7. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O FAKKIRAPPA BARKIHADAGALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI, TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
8. SRI. NARAYAN S/O FAKKIRAPPA BARKIHADAGALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R.F.A.No.100618/2019
3
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
TQ. AND DIST: DHARWAD.
9. SMT. LATA W/O. HOLEYAPPA BULLA,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: AMMINABHAVI,
R/O. LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
10. ISHWARAPPA S/O HOLEYAPPA BULLA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
11. SANGAMA D/O HOLEYAPPA BULLA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
12. PRIYANKA S/O HOLEYAPPA BULLA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
13. ANIL S/O NARAYAN GHORAPADE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VIKAS NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
14. SANJAY S/O NARAYAN GHORAPADE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VIKAS NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
15. BALAJI & COMPANY,
R/BY ITS PARTNER,
T. SELVARAJ S/O N. THANGAMUTHU,
R.F.A.No.100618/2019
4
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
16. SRI. SANDEEP S/O KISHANLAL GAMBHIR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI,
TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR C/R-1 AND R-2)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.04.2019 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.2/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARWAD,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND
SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH
PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
DR. H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants appearing
physically, once again prays for time.
2. This Court, in this appeal of the year 2019, after
seeing that several and sufficient opportunities had already
been granted to the appellants, even after imposing a cost of
`500/-, had granted time to them as a last chance.
R.F.A.No.100618/2019
3. According to note put up by the Registry, the
appellants have neither paid the cost nor complied the office
objections. It appears that the office objections initially were
large in number, not less than 45, out of which, only few
office objections are still pending, which could have been
attended to very conveniently by this time, which also the
appellants have not done. No reasons are forthcoming either
for non-compliance of office objections and also for non-
payment of cost, as such, the appeal stands dismissed for
non-compliance of office objections.
In view of the disposal of the main appeal, I.A.Nos.1
and 2 of 2020 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Naa
