Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri H.C. Muddachari @ ... on 10 October, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36794
RSA No. 1182 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1182 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O. LATE H. KALACHARI
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE
2. SRI RAJACHARI
S/O. LATE H.C. KALACHARI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
BOTH APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
R/O. YALAKANURHOSALLI VILLAGE
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
3. SMT. SUVARNA
W/O. MAHADEVA
Digitally signed D/O. LATE H.C. KALACHARI
by SHARANYA T
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HOUSEWIFE
KARNATAKA R/O. KARTHALU VILLAGE
K.R. NAGAR TALUK
MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
4. SMT. LEELAVATHI @ VINODA
W/O. GANESHA
D/O. LATE H.C. KALACHARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE
R/O. KORMANGALA, DUDDA HOBLI
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 118.
...APPELLANTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36794
RSA No. 1182 of 2019
AND:
1. SRI H.C. MUDDACHARI
@ MUDDUVEERACHARI
S/O. LATE CHANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2. SMT. SAROJAMMA
W/O. H.C. MUDDUVEERACHARI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
AGRICULTURISTS
R/O. HAMPAPURA VILLAGE
RAMNATHAPURA HOBLI
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 133.
3. SRI C.N. SATHISH
S/O. LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O . YELKNUR HOSALLI VILLAGE,
SOMWARAPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.
4. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O. LATE PUTTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
5. SRI RAJACHAR
S/O. LATE PUTTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
6. SRI THAMMAAIAH
S/O. LATE PUTTACHARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
7. SMT. YASHODHA
D/O. LATE PUTTACHARI
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36794
RSA No. 1182 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
HOUSE KEEPER
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 7 ARE
R/O. BEKRE VILLAGE
BETTADAPURA HOBLI
PERIYAPTNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.
8. SMT. DEVAMMA
W/O. LATE MALLESHACHARI
D/O. LATE CHANDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
R/O. CHAPPARADALLI VILLAGE,
HARNALLI VILLAGE
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.
9. SMT. MANJULA
W/O. PUTTANNAIAHCHAR
D/O. LATE CHANDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 40 EYARS,
MAZDOOR
R/O. DODDAKAMBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
HARNALLI VILLAGE
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.
10. SMT. JYOTHI
W/O. NAGARAJACHARI
D/O. LATE CHANDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
MAZDOOR
R/O. CHENNAKESHAVAPURA VILLAGE,
HARNALLI VILALGE
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107.
11. SWAMY
S/O. LATE CHANDRACHARI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:36794
RSA No. 1182 of 2019
CARPENTER
R/O. HAMPAPURA VILLAGE
RAMNATHAPURA HOBLI
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 133.
12. SRI H.C. PUTTASWAMACHARI
S/O. LATE CHANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
13. SRI H.C. SANNACHARI
S/O. LATE CHANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
14. SRI H.C. NAGACHARI
S/O. LATE CHANNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST
RESPONDENT NOS.12 TO 14 ARE
R/O. HAMPAPURA VILLAGE
RAMANTHAPURA HOBLI
ARKALGUD TALUK
HASSASN DISTRICT-573 133.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.03.2019
PASSED IN R.A.NO.34/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, SOMWARPETE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.04.2016
PASSED IN O.S.NO.87/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE, SOMWRPET.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:36794
RSA No. 1182 of 2019
ORDER
Learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo for
retirement dated 30.06.2023 and along with memo for
retirement, learned counsel has also produced copy of the
letter addressed to the appellants, postal receipt and postal
acknowledgement for having served notice on appellant Nos.3
and 4 and so also track sheet in respect of appellant Nos.1 and
2. Inpsite of having acknowledged the retirement memo, the
appellants, till date have not made any arrangements to
engage any new counsel and the office objections are also not
complied with.
2. Having considered the memo along with the
documents which have been produced, learned counsel for the
appellants is permitted to retire from the case and
consequently, in view of not engaging any counsel by the
appellants and non-compliance of office objections from the
year 2019, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of office
objections.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
