Karnataka High Court
K. Lakshminarasappa vs Smt. Jayamma on 11 September, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:32786
RSA No. 2158 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2158 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
K. LAKSHMINARASAPPA,
S/O LATE C.K. KRISHNAMURTHY,
R/O NO.234, ANEMATE ROAD,
ACHARYA STREET, CHIKKAPET,
TUMAKURU -572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYAMMA,
D/O CHINNAGADA RANGAIAH,
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T R/O KODIHALLI - 572 128,
Location: HIGH KORA HOBLI.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. SARVAMMA @ SARVAMANGALA,
D/O LATE CHINAGADA RANGAIAH,
W/O BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O SANGANAHALLI - 572 116,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
3. SMT. MANGALAMMA,
D/O LATE CHINAGADA RANGAIAH,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:32786
RSA No. 2158 of 2017
W/O NANJUDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O KODIHALLI - 572 128,
KORA HOBLI,
TUMKURU TALUK.
4. GANGAMMA,
D/O LATE CHINAGADA RANGAIAH,
W/O NANJUDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O RANGAPURA, WARD NO.1,
OORUKERE - 572 106,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK.
5. SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
D/O LATE CHINAGADA RANGAIAH,
W/O DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O BEERANAKALLU - 572 104,
SWANDENAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK.
C.R. RAJANNA,
S/O LATE CHINAGADA RANGAIAH,
W/O NANJUDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O RANGAPURA, WARD NO.1,
OORUKERE - 572 106,
KASABA HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK,
DEAD BY L.Rs.,
SOWBHAGYAMMA,
6.
W/O LATE C.R. RAJANNA @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:32786
RSA No. 2158 of 2017
7. RANGANATHA,
S/O LATE C.R. RAJANNA @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
8. SHASHIDAR R.,
S/O LATE C.R. RAJANNA @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
9. THEERTHAKUMAR R.,
S/O LATE C.R. RAJANNA @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
10. SHOBHA R.,
D/O LATE C.R. RAJANNA @ RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10 ARE
R/O RANGAPURA, WARD NO.1,
ORUKERE POST - 572 106,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 TO R10 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.8.2017
PASSED IN RA NO.5/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
7.11.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.219/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:32786
RSA No. 2158 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Appellant's counsel is absent. This appeal is of the year
2017 and the learned counsel is not pursuing the matter
diligently. This Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 made it clear
that if the appellant's counsel does not appear on the next date
of hearing, the appeal would be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Once again, the matter was listed on 28.08.2023 and after
having perused the records, it is seen that the learned counsel
for the appellant is not pursuing the matter inspite of
opportunity being given to address the arguments. The suit is
one for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are
entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/6th legitimate
share in respect of the suit schedule properties and the sale
deed dated 07.05.2011 concocted between defendant Nos.3
and 4 is not binding upon their share. The trial court having
considered the material on record decreed the suit in favour of
the plaintiffs granting 1/6th share each in respect of item No.1
and 2 properties and with regard to the sale deed, the trial
court has come to the conclusion that the same is concocted
between defendant Nos.3 and 4 and the same is not binding
upon the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule item No.2
NC: 2023:KHC:32786
RSA No. 2158 of 2017
property. However, claim in respect of item No.3 property is
dismissed. An appeal was filed by defendant No.4 only before
the appellate court. The plaintiffs also have not challenged the
order of dismissal of suit in respect of item No.3 property. The
appellate court allowed the appeal by modifying the judgment
of the trial court by allotting 1/12th share each to plaintiff Nos.1
to 3 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 while defendant No.3 is allotted
7/12th share.
Having considered the nature of the suit and as the
appellant is also not pursuing the matter diligently and in view
of the earlier order, the appeal is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MN
CT: ABS
