Shankramma And Ors vs Gouramma And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 855 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Shankramma And Ors vs Gouramma And Ors on 9 July, 2025

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-K:3771
                                                       RSA No. 200428 of 2024


                    HC-KAR




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                       KALABURAGI BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                             BEFORE

                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 200428 OF 2024
                                           (PAR/POS)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   SHANKRAMMA
                        W/O SANGAMESH,
                        AGE: 42 YEARS,
                        OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/O: SINDHANUR,
                        TQ: SINDHANUR,
                        DIST: RAICHUR.

                   2.   SHARANABASAVA
                        S/O MALLANNA,
                        AGE: 40 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed        R/O: SANTEKELLUR VILLAGE,
by RAMESH               TQ: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR.
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           3.   AYYANAGOUDA
KARNATAKA               S/O MALLANNA,
                        AGE: 38 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O: SANTEKELLUR VILLAGE,
                        TQ: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR.

                   4.   AMAREGOUDA S/O MALLANNA,
                        AGE: 37 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O: SANTEKELLUR VILLAGE,
                        TQ: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR.
                                                                 ...APPELLANTS
                   (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)
                              -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:3771
                                      RSA No. 200428 of 2024


 HC-KAR




AND:

1.   GOURAMMA
     W/O ADANNA HONNALLI,
     AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: SARJAPUR VILLAGE,
     TQ: LINGASUGURU,
     DIST: RAICHUR.

2.   MALLANNA
     S/O RUDRAGOUDA MALIPATIL,
     AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED,
     R/O: AMARAVATHI VILLAGE,
     NOW RESIDING AT SANTEKELLUR VILLAGE,
     TQ: LINGASUGUR,
     DIST: RAICHUR.

3.   PARVATEMMA
     W/O SHANKRAPPA MALIPATIL,
     AGE: 49 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: AMARAVATHI VILLAGE,
     TQ: LINGASUGURU, DIST: RAICHUR.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR SITTING AT
SINDHANUR, ITINERARY AT LINGASUGUR IN R.A.NO.39/2022 AND
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.06.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE J.M.F.C., AT LINGASUGUR IN O.S.NO.39/2018 INSOFAR
AS ALLOTTING SHARE OF PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED FOR 1/3RD SHARE.
THE PARVATHEMMA BEING A LEGAL HEIR OF SHANKARAPPA IS
ENTITLED FOR 1/3RD SHARE, THE DEFENDANT NO.1, 3 TO 6
TOGETHER ENTITLED FOR 1/3RD SHARE I.E, THE DEFENDANT NO.1,
3 TO 6 EACH ENTITLED FOR 1/15TH SHARE IN THE SUIT PROPERTIES
AND PROPERTY MENTIONED IN THE 'B' SCHEDULE AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SUIT OF PLAINTIFF.

     THIS RSA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                               -3-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:3771
                                      RSA No. 200428 of 2024


HC-KAR




                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Though matter was listed for non-compliance of office

objections for fifth time, none appears. It was passed over and

called again.

There is no representation. This would indicate that

appellants are not diligent in pursuing appeal. Hence, appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

NB

Ct: Vk