IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR R.F.A.NO.956 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Mr. Srinivas Murthy S/o Late Nagappa Aged about 77 years R/at No.555 Opp. Koramangala Police Station Bengaluru – 560 027 …Appellant (By Sri Syed Ummer, Advocate)(Absent) AND:
1. Yogendra S/o Late Narayanaswamy Aged about 40 years 2. Sri Prabhakar S/o Late Narayanaswamy Aged about 36 years 3. Sri N.Krishnamurthy S/o Late Nagappa Aged about 56 years R/at No.67, 4th Main Road A.D.Block, Sri Rampuram Bengaluru – 560 021 4. Sri Muniramaiah S/o Late Nagappa Aged about 54 years R/at No.1554 Eastern Main Road Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 069 5. Sri N.Nagaraj S/o Late Nagappa Aged about 52 years R/at No.29, 2nd Cross Soonangi Layout Ramswamy Palya Bengaluru-560 033 6. Smt. Nanjamma W/o Late Sri Narasimhaiah Aged about 65 years R/at Janatha Colony II Borewell Near Saraswathi Vidyanikethan School, Dommasandra Grama Anekal Taluk, Sarjapur Hobli Bengaluru Rural District 7. Smt. Saraswathamma W/o Late Sri Nanjundappa Aged about 75 years R/at Janatha Colony II Borewell Near Saraswathi Vidyanikethan School, Dommasandra Grama Anekal Taluk, Sarjapur Hobli Bengaluru Rural District 8. Smt. Manjula D/o Late Narayanaswamy Aged about 46 years R/at No.10, 8th Cross Bannerghatta Weaver’s Colony Gottigere, Bengaluru 9. Smt. Savitha D/o Late Narayanaswamy Aged about 40 years R/at No.130, 3rd Cross Sun City, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bengaluru 10. Smt. Sharada D/o Late Narayanaswamy Aged about years R/at Flat No.316, B.Block Pyramid Apartment Shivanahalli, Surabhi Layout Yelahanka, Bengaluru ... Respondents This RFA is filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2016 passed in O.S.No.1371/2004 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-44), decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.
This appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The appellant’s counsel is absent. Compliance is not reported inspite of giving sufficient time. Therefore, appeal is dismissed.
KMV/-
Sd/- JUDGE