Sri. Veera Kumar Jain vs Smt. Devamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 1846 Kant

                                                 -1-
                                                           RSA No. 558 of 2022




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                              BEFORE

                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                             REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.558 OF 2022 (PAR)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI VEERA KUMAR JAIN,
                      S/O V.C. JAIN,
                      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                      R/A NO.440A AND B BLOCK,
                      DOUBLE ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR,
                      MYSURU-570023.
                      REP BY ITS SPECIAL POWER OF
                      ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI R. YATISH CHANDRA.

                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                                (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY AND
                                SRI A.S. NAVEEN, ADVOCATES - ABSENT)

                      AND:
Digitally signed by
SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH        1.   SMT. DEVAMMA,
COURT OF                   W/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
KARNATAKA
                           AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

                      2.   SRI M. SHIVALINGU,
                           S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
                           AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

                      3.   SRI A. MAHALINGA,
                           S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
                           AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

                      4.   SRI M. SWAMY,
                           S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
                           AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
                              -2-
                                     RSA No. 558 of 2022




5.   SRI M. RAVI,
     S/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

     ALL ARE R/O B.H. COLONY POST,
     KERAGODU HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

6.   SMT. M. BHAGYA,
     W/O BOREGOWDA,
     D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     R/O T. MALLIGERE,
     THAGGAHALLI HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

7.   SMT. M. SHOBAHA,
     W/O JAGADISH,
     D/O LATE MAHADEVAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     R/O HOSABUDANUR VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
     MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

8.   SMT. THAYAMMA,
     W/O LATE M. LINGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

9.   SRI M. SHAMBEGOWDA,
     S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

10. SMT. S. PRATHIBHA,
    W/O C.N. MAHESH,
    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

11. SRI M. PUTTAMADU,
    S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

12. SRI M. BANDIGOWDA,
    S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
                               -3-
                                          RSA No. 558 of 2022




13. SRI M. MADAPPA,
    S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

14. SRI M. CHOWDAPA,
    S/O LATE MADEGOWDA,
    AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

     R8 TO R14 ARE R/O NO.2378/1,
     NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,
     K.G. KOIPPAL, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
     MYSURU.

15. SMT. PUTTALINGAMMA,
    W/O SHIVANNA,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    R/O GOPALAPURA VILLAGE,
    JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK.

16. THE COMMISSIONER, MUDA,
    JLB ROAD, MYSURU.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS R.S.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2021
PASSED IN R.A.NO.367/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2009 PASSED IN OS.NO.570/2006
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)
AND JMFC, MYSORE.

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

                      JUDGMENT

This appeal was filed in the year 2022 and this Court

vide order dated 06.04.2022, granted four weeks time to

remove the office objections and made it clear that otherwise

the appeal stands dismissed. Inspite of the same, till date the

RSA No. 558 of 2022

office objections are not complied with. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed for non-compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD