IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR R.F.A. No.413/2014 BETWEEN :
SRI D.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560092 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI S.MRUTHYUNJAYA, ADV. – ABSENT.) AND :
1. SRI CHIKKADADDAPPA S/O LATE D.MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. SRI M.SRINIVAS S/O LATE D.MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SRI A.M.GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE D.MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS ALL ARE R/O AMRUTHAHALLI YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560092 4. SRI SRIRAMULU SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 4a) SMT.GEETHALAKSHMI W/O LATE SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4b) SMT.DIVYA D/O LATE SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 4c) SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE R/O NEAR SIDDARTHA COLLEGE, HMT LAYOUT R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560092 5. SRI C.D.GURURAJ S/O CHIKKADADDAPPA, MAJOR 6. SRI C.D.BHARATH RAJ S/O CHIKKADADDAPPA, MAJOR 7. SRI C.D.MOHAN RAJ S/O CHIKKADADDAPPA, MAJOR ALL ARE R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560092 8. SRI A.V.SUBRAMANI S/O D.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 8a) SMT.ROOPA W/O LATE A.V.SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 8b) Ms. HAMSA D/O LATE A.V.SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 8c) Ms. DEENA D/O LATE A.V.SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS RESPONDENT No.8(b) AND 8(c) ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT.ROOPA RESPONDENT No.8(a) R/O AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE-560092 9. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT AMRUTHAHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 10. SRI A.V.SRINIVAS S/O D.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 10a) SMT.CHANDRAMMA W/O D.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 10b) SMT.A.V.MALA D/O D.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 10c) SMT.A.V.UMITHA D/O D.M.VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL ARE R/O AMRUTHALLI VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-560092 …RESPONDENTS THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED IN O.S.NO.8733/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII- ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS R.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Appellant’s counsel is absent.
For the reason that the appellant’s counsel has failed to comply the office objections, appeal is dismissed for default.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-