Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Srinivasa Vs Rathnamma — Partition | Karnataka HC (2021)

Home
Karnataka HC
2021
Srinivasa Vs RathnammaSrinivasa v. Rathnamma

Dismissed

Srinivasa v. Rathnamma

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2021RSA/572/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Second Appeal allowed four weeks to file objections, but subsequently dismissed due to non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 572 OF 2016

BETWEEN

SRINIVASA

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

LATE NARAYANAPPA,

R/AT MADHERI VILLAGE,

TAYALUR HOBLI,

MULBAGAL TALUK-563132

... APPELLANT/S

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Srinivasa
respondent
Rathnamma
respondent
Srinivas
respondent
Narayanaamma
respondent
Jayalakshmamma
respondent

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 23 Apr 2021 · April
Registered: 31 Mar 2016
Case no.: RSA/572/2016

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R. Natara

Sri Ramakrishnappa S/O Late Kariyappa @ Kariyanna Vs Smt Rangamma W/O K. Thimmappa
22 Apr 2021
Sri Shivanna Vs v Swetha
21 Apr 2021
Sri Nanjappa Vs Sri Narasappa
21 Apr 2021
Smt Basamma Vs Siddalingappa
23 Apr 2021

Cite this judgement

Srinivasa v. Rathnamma, RSA/572/2016 (KA), decided on 23 April 2021.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Nataraj Rangaswamy

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Dismissed for non-compliance of office objections and non-payment of costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The court granted time to file objections but indicted that failure to comply would lead to dismissal. Subsequently, the appeal was dismissed on record for non-payment of costs.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

(By Sri./Smt :N.S.SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE)

AND

RATHNAMMA

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMAPPA

R SRINIVAS

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMAPPA,

…2

2

RSA NO. 572/2016

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

KUMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563132

SMT NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O GOPALAIAH,

JAYALAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O LATE GOPALAIAH,

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MADHERI VILLAGE, TAYALUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK-563132

5. ADEMMA

W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, D/O DODDAMUNISWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUMADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563132 (R5 IS WRONGLY ARRAYED AS PARTY-SHE IS DEAD) …RESPONDENT/S

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION

100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2015 PASSED

…3

3

RSA NO. 572/2016

IN IA NO.1 IN RA NO.123/2014 ON THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR, DISMISSING THE IA NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2012 PASSED IN OS NO.64/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULBAGAL.

This Regular Second Appeal coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following Order:-

ORDER

Four weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections subject to payment of cost of a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Registry. If the costs are not paid, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Bench.

Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to file the proof of death of plaintiff No.1 within a period of four weeks.

Sd/- JUDGE

…4

4 RSA NO. 572/2016

NOTE : Vide Court Order dated 23.04.2021, office objections are not complied with, hence appeal shall stand dismissed.

COPY

Sd/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

T By: SV R By: HKV C By: DS Ty Date: 01.02.2022 C Date: 02.02.2022

Ademma

Coram

AI extract

Nataraj Rangaswamy

CNR

KAHC010261652016

Topic

Bench

Disposal

Dismissed for Non-Prosecution

Smt Pushpa Vs Sumithra

23 Apr 2021

N.Shanthamma Vs Gundurao

23 Apr 2021