Dyavamma vs D.Thimmappa
2024 Latest Caselaw 4244 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Dyavamma vs D.Thimmappa on 12 February, 2024

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                    -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:3051
                                                            RFA No. 100137 of 2015




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                 BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                             REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100137 OF 2015 (FDP)

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   DYAVAMMA W/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
                           AGED: ABOUT 86 YEARS,
                           R/AT W.NO.20, D.NO.22 (PART),
                           NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
                           COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583102

                      2.   D PRAKASH NAGARAJ S/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
                           AGED: ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: INSTRUCTOR,
                           R/AT : ITI, PEENYA, DASARAHALLI,
                           BENGALURU-560022

                      3.   OMKARAMMA D/O DYAMMA
                           AGED: ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                           R/AT: W.NO.20, D.NO.22 PART),
                           NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE,
                           STREET, COWL BAZAAR,
SUJATA                     BALLARI-583102
SUBHASH                                                              ...APPELLANTS
PAMMAR                (BY SRI.D. PRAKASH NAGARAJ, ADV. FOR A1;
                      APPEAL AGAINST A1 AND A3 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
PAMMAR
                      AND:
Date: 2024.02.13
05:14:11 +0530
                      1.   D.THIMMAPPA S/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
                           AGED: ABOUT 68 YEARS,
                           OCC: EX-MILITARY SERVICE,
                           R/AT: D.NO.16/22, IST CROSS,
                           GURRAPPANAPALYAM,
                           BENGALURU-560029

                      2.   D GOPAL KRISHNA
                           S/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
                           AGED: ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                           OCC: DEPUTY MANAGER,
                               -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:3051
                                       RFA No. 100137 of 2015




     STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANGALURU.

3.   D PANDURANGA S/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
     AGED: ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER,
     KSFC, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

4.   D VEDAVATHI D/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
     AGED: ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: BANK OFFICER,
     CORPORATION BANK, CHATRAM ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560001

5.   DR. TULASI DEVI
     D/O LATE D HANUMANTHAPPA,
     AGED: ABOUT 49 YEARS,
     K.C. GENERAL HOSPITAL,
     MALLESHWARAM,
     MANGALURU-560003

6.   HAMPAMMA D/O DYAMMA
     AGED: ABOUT 63 YEARS,
     R/AT: W.NO.20, D.NO.22 (PART),
     NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE,
     STREET, COWL BAZAAR,
     BALLARI-583102

7.   GARIKAPETA PRAMILA DEVI
     W/O G.RADHAKRISHNA, AGE: MAJOR,
     R/AT: C/O K.THIPPANNA,
     R/AT: SWAMIJI NAGAR, TALUR ROAD,
     BALLARI-583102
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. APPEAL AGAINST R1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3, R4, R5, R6 SERVED;
SRI. B. KRUPANAND, ADV. FOR R7)

      THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER
XLI (41) OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMETN AND DECREE DATED
15.0.2015, PASSED IN FDP NO.05/2008, ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI, THE PETITION IS
HEREBY ALLOWED.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-
                                    NC: 2024:KHC-D:3051
                                      RFA No. 100137 of 2015




                          JUDGMENT

Appeal has been dismissed as abated as against appellant

Nos.1 and 3.

Appellant No.2 though called out, has remained absent.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution

against the appellant No.1.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RSH / CT:ANB