Karnataka High Court
Muthuraju vs Lakshmamma on 11 April, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 831 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 831 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. MUTHURAJ
S/O. LATE BETTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
2. KRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE BETTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
KOTHIPURA VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.R. HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA LAKSHMAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.R.
1. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT SANTHENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. KATARAJU
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA
-2-
RSA No. 831 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/A 25TH WARD
HANUMANTHANAGAR
JALAMANGALA ROAD
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.
3. PRAKASH
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT KALLUGOPAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. KRISHNA
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT SANTHENAHALLI VILLAGE
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5. SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT SANTHENAHALLI VILLAGE
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
6. MANJU
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
HANUMANTHANAGAR
JALAMANGALA ROAD
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.
7. SMT. MANGALAMMA
W/O. LATE RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
-3-
RSA No. 831 of 2018
R/AT KOTHIPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
8. RAJA
S/O. LATE RAJANNA
SMT. SAROJAMMA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KOTHIPURA VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
NOW RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
SMT. NINGARAJAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs.
9. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
10. SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
11. GOPI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 11 ARE
R/O ACHALU VILLAGE
K.P. DODDI POST
KAILANCHA HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
JAYAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.Rs
12. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE RAMANNA AND JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O. WARD NO.19,
BEHIND TILES FACTORY
MADDURAMMA STREET
-4-
RSA No. 831 of 2018
KANAKAPURA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
13. SRI RAMESH K.R.
S/O. LATE RAMANNA AND JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
14. SRI SURESH K.R.
S/O. LATE RAMANNA AND JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.13 AND 14 ARE
R/O. NARAYANAURA VILLAGE,
KOLIGANAHALLI POST,
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
PUTTACHANNAMMA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs.
ARUNKUMAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs.
15. RAJU
S/O. LATE ARUNKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/O. NO.106, 1ST CROSS,
MYSORE ROAD,
JANATHA COLONY,
HALEGUDDADAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 026.
NOW PRESENTLY R/O.
RAMASAGARA VILLAGE,
NEAR COOKER FACTORY
HAROHALLI HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
16. SMT. CHANDRAMMA
D/O. LATE BETTEGOWDA
-5-
RSA No. 831 of 2018
W/O. NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT KOTHIPURA VILLAGE,
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
17. SMT. BHAVANI BAI
W/O. LATE PRABAHAB SINGH S.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 695, SACHIDANANDANAGAR
6TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
K.S.T. TOWN
BENGALURU-560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 100 OF CPC, 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 24.01.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2012 AND R.A.NO.40/2012, ON THE
FILE OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING R.A.NO.34/2012 FILED BY
DEFENDANT NO.3 AND DISPOSING OF R.A.NO.40/12 FILED BY
DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 2 BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 10.04.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.288/2006 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M.,
RAMANAGARA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Court vide order dated 26.10.2021, granted two
weeks time to comply with the office objections and also made
it clear that, if the office objections are not complied within two
weeks, list the matter for dismissal. However, inspite of an
opportunity being provided, learned counsel for the appellants
has not complied with the office objections.
RSA No. 831 of 2018
2. Now, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that, after compliance, the office has raised four more office
objections. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that, no
such office objections are raised as submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellants and the office objections yet to be
complied were raised earlier itself.
3. Hence, in view of the peremptory order, the appeal
is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
