M.B.Ekambrachari vs Smt. H.R.Sharadamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1513 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                       RSA No. 528 of 2020




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                              BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                    REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 528 OF 2020 (DEC/INJ)

                   BETWEEN:

                         M.B.EKAMBRACHARI
                         SINCE DEAD BY LRS

                   1.    UMAVATHI
                         WIFE OF LATE EKAMBRACHARI
                         AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

                   2.    SRI SHANKAR
                         S/O. LATE EKAMBRACHARI
                         AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

                   3.    PADMAJA
                         D/O. LATE EKAMBRACHARI
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T      4.    SMT. SHIVALEELA
Location: HIGH           D/O. LATE EKAMBRACHARI
COURT OF                 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
KARNATAKA

                   5.    SRI GURUPRASAD
                         S/O. LATE EKAMBRACHARI
                         AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

                   6.    SRI SHUSHAN BABU
                         S/O. LATE EKAMBRACHARI
                         AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

                         ALL RESIDENT OF
                         MACHOHALLI VILLAGE
                             -2-
                                      RSA No. 528 of 2020




     VISHWANEEDAM POST,
     BENGALURU-566 091
                                            ...APPELLANTS

         (BY SRI. B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   SMT. H.R. SHARADAMMA
     W/O. LATE SIDDAPPACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

2.   M.S. ASHWATHANARAYANA ACHARI
     S/O. LATE SIDDAPPACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

     SRI SUBRAMANYAM
     SINCE DEAD BY LRS

3.   KUSUMA
     W/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

4.   MANASA
     D/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

5.   MADHU
     S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

6.   SHASHIDHAR
     S/O. LATE SUBRAMANI
     AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

     RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 6 ARE
     RESIDENT AT C/O. ALLUMUNIYAPPA
     COMPOUND, JAKKUR VILLAGE,
     NEAR BUS STAND
     POST OFFICE ROAD,
     BYATARAYANAPURA, YELAHANKA
     BENGALURU-560 064.
                           -3-
                                    RSA No. 528 of 2020




7.   M.S. SHIVASHANKAR MURTHY
     S/O. SIDDAPPACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2 AND 7 ARE ALL
     RESIDENT OF MACHOHALLI VILLAGE,
     VISHWANEEDAM POST
     BENGALURU-560 091.

8.   NAGARATHNAMMA
     W/O. H.S. RAJAGOPALACHAR
     D/O. LATE SIDDAPPACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     RESIDENT OF O.P.O. ROAD,
     CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 101.

9.   S. BHAGEERATHAMMA
     WIFE OF CHANDRACHARI
     D/O. LATE SIDDAPPACHAR
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
     RESIDENT AT GANGAMMA
     TEMPLE STREET
     CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.

10. M.S. PRAHAVATHAMMA
    WIFE OF LATE S.E. RAJAGOPALACHARI
    D/O. LATE SIDDAPPACHAR
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
    RESIDENT AT YAGGANAHALLI
    NEAR MOHAN TALKIES
    BENGALURU-560 091.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER 100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.09.2019 PASSED IN R.A.
NO.63/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 09.12.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.306/2009
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AT
NELAMANGALA.
                                -4-
                                           RSA No. 528 of 2020




    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

This Court, vide order dated 07.02.2023, granted two

weeks time to comply with the office objections on payment of

cost of Rs.1,000/- and also made it clear that, if the cost is not

paid and the office objections are not complied with, list this

matter for dismissal. Inspite of the same, the learned counsel

for the appellants has not complied with the office objections

but, has only paid the cost.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of

office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST