Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3279 Kant
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1251
RSA No.7333 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.7333 OF 2011 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SANGAPPA S/O NAGAPPA KANTI
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O BHANTANALLI TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. GULBARGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAXMIBAI W/O CHANDRASHEKAR POLICEPATIL
Digitally signed
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD AFFAIRS,
by SHILPA R R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
TENIHALLI
Location: HIGH 2. PADMAVATI W/O SANGAPPA KANTI
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
3. SRINIVAS S/O SANGAPPA KANTI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
4. BANNAMMA W/O KASHINATH
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1251
RSA No.7333 of 2011
5. SHARANABASAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KANTI
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
6. NIRMALA W/O REVANSIDDA @ SIDDU
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI
7. MAHESH S/O SANGAPPA KANTI
AGE:29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
8. NAGAPPA S/O SANGAPPA KANTI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O BHANTANALLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI.
9. LALITABAI W/O SANGAPPA PYATI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O KARKAMUKALI, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
ALL DIST. GULBARGA-585104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 TO R9 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE SECOND APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHINCHOLI IN
RA.NO.39/2010 DATED 14.07.2011 AND CONFIRM THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE(JR.
DN), CHINCHOLI IN OS.NO.89/2008.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1251
RSA No.7333 of 2011
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant is absent.
It is already reported by the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 that the sole appellant died in 2016 itself
and in spite of lapse of nearly 7 ½ years, no steps were
taken by the legal representatives of deceased appellant
so as to prosecute the matter. In view of the same, the
appeal stands abated.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!