Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs Sri Gangappa on 22 February, 2024
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7522
RFA No. 908 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE THIUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE
VILLAGE NELAMANGALA
TALUK
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE
BANGALORE - 560023
2. SRI HANUMATHAPPA
S/O LATE THIRUMALAIAH
Digitally signed by
HEMALATHA A AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Location: High RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE
Court of VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK
Karnataka
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
3. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7522
RFA No. 908 of 2019
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
4. SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
5. SRI SRIDHAR
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
6. SMT NEELAMMA
S/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE
VILLAGE NELAMANGALA
TALUK PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
7. SMT BHAGYAMMA
D/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7522
RFA No. 908 of 2019
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
8. SMT NAGAMMA
D/O THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
9. SRI RAJA
GRAND SON OF THIRUMALAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE
VILLAGE NELAMANGALA TALUK
PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
10. SRI VENKATACHALAPPA
S/O LAKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023
11. SRI MARACHIKKANNA
S/O GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF MANDIGERE VILLAGE
NELAMANGALA TALUK PRESENTLY NO 88/27,
S T CHOULTRY MAGADI ROAD,
OPP ANJAN THEATRE BANGALORE - 560023.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7522
RFA No. 908 of 2019
AND:
SRI GANGAPPA
(DELETED)
1. SRI LAKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT MADIGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT.
2. SMT RATHNAMMA
W/O NAGARAJ
D/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT GOPALAPURA RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 562162
3. SMT RENUKA
W/O MUNIRAJU
D/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT KEREGUNDAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI,
CHIKKABANAVARA POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 562162
4. SMT VARALAKSHMI
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
D/O LATE GANGAPPA
ALUR POST,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE - 562162
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7522
RFA No. 908 of 2019
5. SRI SRINIVASA
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT MANDIGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ...RESPONDENTS
RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF THE CPC.AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.11.2018 PASSED IN OS
NO.1528/2009 OLD NO.486/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR MESNE PROFITS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Inspite of granting opportunity for six times, the office
objections have not been complied with.
2. Even when the matter was posted before the Court for
compliance of office objections on 21.02.2024, none appeared
for the appellants in both the sessions and office objections
have not been complied with and the matter was ordered to be
listed to today at the top of the list under the caption 'for
dismissal'.
3. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of
the appellants in both the sessions and the office objections
NC: 2024:KHC:7522
have not been complied with. It appears that the appellants
are not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
4. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CM
