IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.983 OF 2016 (DEC) BETWEEN:
K.M.PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O. LATE. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AGRICULTURIST RESIDENT OF KAMASAGARA VILLAGE SARASWATHIPURA POST KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548. … APPELLANT (BY SRI G. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
ESHWARAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. C.E. SHADAKSHARI S/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. MALLIKARJUNA D/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENT OF CHIKKA PATNAGERE VILLLAGE, DODDAPATTANAGERE POST KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR-577 548 4. SMT. MALAMMA D/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS HOUSE-HOLD RESIDENT OF BETTADAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR-577 228 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSE HOLD RESIDENT OF KOLLENINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK CHICKMAGALUR-577 228 6. SMT. CHANDRAMMA D/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE HOLD RESIDING AT SAMATHALA VILLAGE TARIKERE TALUK CHICKMAGALUR-577 228 7. SMT. PREMA D/O. LATE. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HOUSE HOLD RESIDING AT ASANDI VILLAGE AND POST, HIRENALLUR HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 8. SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O. MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 9. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF CHIKKA PATTANAGERE VILLAGE DODDA PATTANAGERE POST KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548 ... RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:29.02.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.53/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KADUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.89/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KADUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T No representation for the appellant. Despite granting four opportunities, office objections are not complied. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KG