Lalita W/O Chandrashekhar Hanshi vs Anasuya W/O Gurappa ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3787 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

                           AND

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

             R.F.A. NO.100227/2014 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

SMT.LALITA W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR HANASI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O HOOLI, TQ: SOUNDATTI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
                                               ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.K.MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     ANASUYA W/O GURAPPA PATTANASHETTY,
       AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
       HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O UGARAGOL,
       TQ: SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2.     SMT.MAHADEVI W/O CHANNAPPA KUDRIMOTI,
       AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORKS,
       R/O CHINNIWALAGATTI ONI, NARAGUND-582206,
       TQ: NARAGUND, DISTRICT: GADAG.

3.     MALLIKARJUN S/O NINGAPPA HANASI,
       AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
       R/O BALIGAR ONI, SAUNDATTI-591126,
       DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

4.     ASHOK S/O VIRUPAXAPPA HANASI,
       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                                  :2:


     R/O UGARAGOL, TQ: SAUNDATTI-591126,
     DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI AND
 SRI RAMESH I.ZIRALI, ADVOCATES FOR R1;
 SRI M.M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
 NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 SERVED)

     THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF C.P.C. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.10.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.57/2013 ON THE FILE OF
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, DECREEING THE SUIT
FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Appellant's counsel is absent. On 05.01.2021, three

weeks time was granted for filing paper books. It was a

final chance. Appeal was admitted on 01.12.2016. It

appears that the appellant is not interested. Therefore,

appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/-

JUDGE CLK