Sri H.V. Srinivasamurthy vs Smt K R Shantha
2023 Latest Caselaw 7074 Kant

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC:36250
                                                         RSA NO.128 OF 2018




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

                                             BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.128 OF 2018 (DEC)
                     BETWEEN:

                     SRI. H.V. SRINIVASAMURTHY
                     S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH
                     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
                     R/O NO.486, 6TH BLOCK,
                     RAJAJINGAR,
                     BENGALURU - 560 010.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
                     (BY SRI. M.V. SRINIVASAMURTHY, APPELLANT/PARTY-IN-
                     PERSON (ABSENT))
                     AND:

                    SMT. K.R. SHANTHA
                    W/O SRI. S. SURYANARAYANA BHATT
                    AGE: MAJOR,
                    C/O MASTER KARTHIK
                    2ND CROSS, SRIDHARA AHSRAMA,
Digitally signed by VASANTHA VALLABHA NAGAR,
ARUN KUMAR M S
Location: High      BENGALURU - 560 061.
Court of Karnataka
                     AND ALSO
                     SMT. K.R. SHANTHA
                     W/O S. SURYANARAYANA BHATT
                     AGE: MAJOR
                     HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER,
                     VISHWA VIDYALAYA HIGH SCHOOL,
                     DONIKANA,
                     CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                     (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2023:KHC:36250
                                            RSA NO.128 OF 2018




     THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2017
PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.13 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT
AND DECREE DATED 28TH MARCH, 2016 PASSED IN ORIGINAL
SUIT NO.95 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI.

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

This Court, by order dated 04th August, 2023, granted

two months time, when the appellant/party-in-person seeks

three months time to file necessary application on the ground

that his daughter is in Texas, USA and busy with the admission

of her children.

2. On the said date, this Court also taken note of the fact

that, in the earlier occasions also time was granted vide order

dated 24th February, 2023, 01st March, 2023 and 10th April,

2023 and till date no application is filed. It is also made clear

that, if the application is not filed within two months, the party-

in-person is not having any locus standi to prosecute the appeal

since, he has already parted the possession in favour of his

daughter and unless the daughter is brought on record, this

Court cannot proceed with the matter.

NC: 2023:KHC:36250 RSA NO.128 OF 2018

3. In spite of sufficient opportunity is given from

February-2023 and also in the previous occasion, the party-in-

person was very much present before the Court and in his

presence the date is given to list this matter today. Having

knowledge of the same, the party-in-person not appeared in

person or through Video Conferencing and also not shown any

interest in making necessary application. In the absence of his

daughter as a party to the proceedings, this Court cannot

proceed with the matter as the party-in-person has already

parted the possession in favour of his daughter. Title was also

transferred in favour of his daughter. In spite of it, the

daughter is not a party and this appellant, when he had lost is

right in respect of property, the question of considering this

appeal does not arise. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

ARK