Dismissed¶45

Smt Gowramma v. Smt Rajamma

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026RSA/456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA 456/2024, Karnataka High Court, dismissed for non-prosecution; office objections un-complied for fourth listing; appellants' counsel absent; Gowramma and others v. Rajamma and others; challenge to Family Court Chikkaballapura decree dated 4.12.2023 in RA 90/2018 reversing trial court dismissal in OS 120/2010 (4.06.2018); filed under Section 100 CPC; no merits decided, no precedent treatment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. ¶45

Smt Gowramma Vs Smt Rajamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2120 RSA No. 456 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT GOWRAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAPPA, W/O LAE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶9

SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶10

SHIVASHANKARA MURTHY S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶11

SMT PAPAMMA W/O LATE MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,

¶12

APPELLANTS ARE

¶13

Digitally signed R/O MANNARAPURA VILLAGE, by ANUSHA V NANDI HOBLI, - 562 101, Location: High CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK. Court of Karnataka

¶14

APPELLANTS

¶15

(BY SRI JAGADISH J R., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT RAJAMMA D/O MUNIGOPALAPPA, W/O NANEPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/ DODDAKIRUGUMBE VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI - 562 101, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2120 RSA No. 456 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT BALAKRISHNAMMA D/O LATE MARIAYAPPA, W/O P A VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O MANNARAPURA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI - 562 101, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.

¶22

VENKATASHIVAREDDY S/O LATE APPASWAMYREDDY, H/O LATE JAYALAKSHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶23

KUMARI VASUKI YADAV V D/O VENKATASHIVAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER BY SRI VENKATA SHIVAREDDY,

¶24

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF DOOR NO. 655, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶25

SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O SEENAPPA, D/O MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,.

¶26

SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O ASWATHAPPA, D/O MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶27

SRI MANJUNATH S/O MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶28

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE R/O DODDAKIRUGUMBE VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI - 562 101, CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2120 RSA No. 456 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

SMT. CHIKKA RAMAKKA W/O DODDA RAMAPPA D/O LATE KUNTLURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O DODDAKIRUGUMBE VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI - 562 101, CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK.

¶32

SRI MUNISHAMAPPA S/O LATE KUNTLURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O HULUBALA VILLAGE KENCHARLAHALLI POST, CHIKKAALLAPURA TALUK.

¶33

SMT RATHNAMMA D/O LATE KUNTLURAPPA, W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O BAPANAHALLI VILLAGE, NANDI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.

¶34

SMT SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE KUNTLURAPPA, W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O MYLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK.

¶35

&RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI SURESH S, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 IN CP NO.573/2024) (BY SRI PRAKSH M, ADV. FOR C/R9 IN CP NO.1651/2024)

¶37

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.12.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.90/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL, JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 4.06.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.120/2010 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHICKBALLAPURA. TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT ALLOWED THE APPEAL.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:2120 RSA No. 456 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

This matter is listed for orders on non-compliance of office objections for 4^th 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.

¶45

Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶46

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶47

PSG

¶48

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 47

Smt Gowramma v. Smt Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. Smt Rajamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Janaki Vs Paniraja Hebbar

Smt. Sujatha Vs Smt. Prathima N Achar

Sri. Basavaraju Vs Somegowda Dead by His Lrs Smt. Rudramma

Smt. N Rama Rani Vs Smt. v K Teja

Mayannagowda M G Vs Smt.Mayamma

Smt Bhagyalakshmi Vs Health and Family Welfare