Karnataka High Court
Mariswamygowda vs S K Krishnegowda on 26 February, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2927 OF 2006 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
MARISWAMYGOWDA
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA @ ANGADI THAMMEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. SMT.MARIYAMMA
W/O LATEMARISWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.
(APPELLANT NO.1 DEAD, APPELLANTS
NO.2 TO 10 ARE THE LRS OF APPELLANT
Digitally signed NO.1 IS ALREADY ON RECORD)
by SHARANYA T
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.06.2019)
KARNATAKA
2. SRI S.M.APPAJIGOWDA
S/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. SRI S.M.RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
R/O BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
4. SRI S.M.SHIVANNAGOWDA
S/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-57435.
5. SRI S.M.CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.
6. SRI THAMMEGOWDA
S/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.
7. SRI S.M. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.
8. SMT. JAYAMMA
D/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/O KEELANAKOPPALU VILLATE
K.R.PET TALUK
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
9. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA
D/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
W/O RAVI
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
10. SMT. DEVAMMA
D/O LATE MARISWAMY GOWDA
W/O RAMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O VITLAPURA VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
...APPELLANTS
[BY SRI R.K.MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT NO.2 TO APPELLANT NO.10 [ABSENT]
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2019,
APPELLANT NO.1 IS DEAD BY LRS
APPELLANT NO.2 TO APPELLANT NO.10]
AND:
S.K. KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA @ ANGADI THAMMANNA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. SMT.DEVAMMA
W/O LATE S.K.KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
(RESPONDENT NO.1 DIED,
SHE HAS DIED LEAVING BEHIND RESPONDENT
NO.3 TO 6 AND PRAPOSED RESPONDENT
NO.2(a) TO 2(e) AS HER LRS)
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.01.2016)
2. SRI DEVARAJA
S/O LATE S.K.KRISHNEGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
a) SMT.PREMA
W/O LATE DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
b) KUM.SANGEETHA
W/O VINOD GOWDA
D/O DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
c) KUM.SHOBASHRI
D/O DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
d) KUM.SHALINI
D/O LATE DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
e) KUM.RAKSHITHA
D/O LATE DEVARAJA
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.PREMA.
ALL ARE R/O. BOOKANAKERE
VILLAGE, K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
3. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE S K KRISHNEGOWDA
W/O PRAKESHA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O HOSANANADUR VILLAGE
BELAGOLA HOBLI,
S.R.PATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
4. SMT.BHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE S K KRISHNEGOWDA
W/O CHELAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
5. SMT. RAJAMMA
D/O LATE S K KRISHNEGOWDA
W/O NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
6. SMT. MEENAKSHI
D/O LATE S K KRISHNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O HIRYUR VILLAGE
T.NARSIPURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571401
7. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/O BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
SRI NAGANNA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
(RESPONDENT NO.7 IS NO MORE,
SHE HAS DIED LEAVING BEHIND
RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 12 AS HER LRS.
(AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.12.2014)
8. SMT. HEMAVATHI
W/O NAGANNA
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE,
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
9. KIRANKUMAR
S/O NAGANNA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/O SANABA VILLAGE
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.
10. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
D/O PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O BOOKINAKERE
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
11. SMT. SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE PUTTAMMA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O BOOKINAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
12. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
D/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O BOOKINAKERE VILLAGE
K.R.PET TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571401
...RESPONDENTS
[VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2016,
R3 TO R6 & R2(a to e) ARE LRS OF DECEASED R1;
SRI B.KESHAVA MURTHY &
M.GANGADHARAIAH, ADVOCATES FOR R2(a to e);
SRI B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S. KLK LAW ASSOCITATES, FOR R3 TO R6;
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
RSA No. 2927 of 2006
VIDE ORDER DATED 03.12.2014,
R8 TO R12 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R7;
SRI V.N.MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
R9 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED;
SRI K.VENKATAMUNI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R12]
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 6.3.2006 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.95/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.), SRIRANGAPATNA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.7.1994
PASSED IN O.S.NO.217/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF,
SRIRANGAPATNA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant is not
pursuing the matter diligently and inspite of an order
is obtained before this court on 17.03.2023 insofar as
drawing up of final decree during the pendency of this
appeal, matter was listed on 03.08.2023 and there
was no representation and once again, matter was
called after lunch and again none appeared before the
court. On 08.09.2023, 12.09.2023, 22.09.2023,
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
27.09.2023 also there was no representation and
02.01.2024 also when the matter was called twice,
there was no representation. This court made it clear
on 02.01.2024 that if the learned counsel for the
appellant does not appear on the next date of hearing,
the appeal will be dismissed for non prosecution. On
09.01.2024, the present appellant counsel was not
present and earlier Advocate made a submission that
earlier he was appearing on behalf of the appellant
and on account of death of the appellant his legal
representatives were brought on record. Thereafter
also, at the instance of learned counsel for the
appellant matter was adjourned on 23.01.2024 and
12.02.2024 and today also i.e., on 26.02.2024 there
is no representation. Hence, the learned counsel for
the appellant is not pursuing the matter, even though
this matter is of the year 2006. Hence, no grounds to
NC: 2024:KHC:7899
adjourn the matter further. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
