Smt Saraswathi vs Smt Puttamma
2026 Latest Caselaw 321 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Saraswathi vs Smt Puttamma on 20 January, 2026

Author: Ravi V Hosmani

Bench: Ravi V Hosmani

                                           -1-
                                                     NC: 2026:KHC:3178
                                                   RSA No. 164 of 2025


               HC-KAR


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                       BEFORE

                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

                    REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2025 (INJ)

              BETWEEN:

              1.    SMT. SARASWATHI
                    W/O LATE S RAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

              2.    SMT. SAVITHA
                    D/O LATE S RAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

              3.    SMT. SOWMYA
                    D/O LATE S RAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

              4.    MADHUSUDAN R
                    D/O LATE S RAJU
                    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V 5.      SMT. SINDUSRI
Location: High      D/O LATE S RAJU
Court of            AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
Karnataka
              6.    SMT. PREMA
                    W/O RAMASANJEEVAIAH,
                    AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

              7.    SMT. LEELAVATHI
                    W/O LATE BASAVARAJU,
                    AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

              8.    SMT. ANNAPOORNA
                    W/O LATE MANJUNATH,
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:3178
                                     RSA No. 164 of 2025


HC-KAR


     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

9.   SRI S JAYKANTH
     S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

10. SRI S BALKRISHNA
    S/O LATE SIDDALINGAIAH,
    AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

11. SMT. S BHARATHI
    W/O LATE BASAVALINGAIAH B.,
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

     ALL ARE R/AT YELIYUR VILLAGE,
     VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
     CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI KEMPARAJU B.G., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

AND:

1.   SMT. PUTTAMMA
     W/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

2.   SMT. SHIVAMMA
     W/O KUMAR
     D/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

3.   SMT. JAYAMMA
     W/O LATE BASAVARAJU
     D/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

4.   SMT. SHARADA
     W/O PRASADA KUMAR
     D/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
                           -3-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:3178
                                     RSA No. 164 of 2025


HC-KAR



5.   SRI MAHADEVAPPA
     S/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH

6.   SRI MAHADEVAPPA
     S/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
7.   SRI KALAIAH
     S/O LATE KALAIAH @ KUNDAGALAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT
     YELIYUR VILLAGE,
     VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBALI,
     CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
     RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.02.2024 PASSED IN

RA.NO.18/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND

CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.10.2015

PASSED IN OS.NO.27/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA.


      THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
                                       -4-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:3178
                                                       RSA No. 164 of 2025


 HC-KAR



                           ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of

office objections for fourth time. Despite sufficient opportunity

having been granted for compliance earlier, appellants were

directed to comply with office objections till closure of Court

hours. However, there is no representation and office

objections remained un-complied. This would indicate that

appellants are not diligently pursuing appeal. Appeal is

dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21