Karnataka High Court
Veerappa Poojary vs Sheenappa @ Srinivasa on 29 August, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1435 OF 2019 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. VEERAPPA POOJARY
S/O KORAGA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT. GIRIJA
W/O DOMBAYYA POOJAR,
MAJOR,
3. SMT. ROHINI
MAJOR,
4. SMT. PUSHPA
MAJOR,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T 5. SMT. LEELA
Location: HIGH MAJOR,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. SMT. NALINI
MAJOR,
7. SMT. YASHODA
MAJOR,
8. DIVAKARA
MAJOR,
9. HEMALATHA
MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
10. MALATHI
MAJOR,
11. VISHALAKSHI
MAJOR,
APPELLANT NOS.3 TO 11 ARE
SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF
LATE DOMBAYYA POOJARY
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
DEEKAJE HOUSE,
KODIBMADY VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-575 222.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHEENAPPA @ SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,
2. VASAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. PADMAPPA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE THE
SONS OF BABU POOJARY,
R/AT PARANEEPU
KODIMBADY VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK,
POST: KODIMBADY,
D.K. DISTRICT-574222.
4. SMT. CHANDRAVATHI
D/O BABU POOJARY,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
W/O TAHNIAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT POOJARIGUDE HOUSE,
BARIMARU VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574219
5. SMT. REVATHI
D/O BABU POOJARY,
W/O HONNAPPA POOJARY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RAT BADAKODY HOUSE,
POST: KAKKEPADAVU, D.K.
BANTWAL TALUK-574219
6. SMT. SHEELAVATHI
D/O BABU POOJARY,
C/O B.B. SHANKER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
K.S.R.T.C. DRIVER,
KOODLTHALIKE HOUSE,
NEKKILADY VILLAGE,
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-574202
7. SMT. JANAKI
D/O BABU POOJARY,
W/O CHENDASHEKHAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT SUNNANDA HOUSE,
BILIYOR VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT-574219.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS R.S.A IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2017 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.139/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., PUTTUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
12.10.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.123/1999 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND PUTTUR D.K.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for appellants on IA
No.1/2019 where there is a delay of 512 days in filing the
appeal.
2. The counsel for appellants has filed an affidavit
in support of this application which was sworn that
judgment and decree was passed on 29.11.2017 in RA
No.139/2007 dismissing the appeal of the appellant in
confirming the order passed in OS No.123/2019 and he
sworn to an affidavit that he has applied for certified copy
on 29.01.2018 and the copy was delivered to an advocate
on 17.02.2018. During the pendency of regular appeal or
after the dismissal of the regular appeal there were no
threats to his possession by the respondents. They are not
aware of the judgment and decree passed in RA
No.139/2007 to challenge before this Court and also given
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
the reason that he was suffering from severe health issue
during the month of August -2018 and he fell ill health due
to disk problem and he was under treatment till the end of
November-2018. Even after the treatment also he was
suffering from back pain, he could not sit and even he
could not walk for a long and thus he was taking rest. In
the month of November-2018, the Tahasildar, Puttur had
issued a notice of eviction against him to remove the
agricultural equipments situated in Sy.No.74/1 which is
land in dispute in the suit. Hence, he has approached the
Court by filing writ petition. In the month of July-2019 he
has approached the advocate and obtained legal
consultation and he was advised to file an appeal. Hence,
the present appeal is filed.
3. Having considered the reasons mentioned in the
affidavit, it is clear that he had the knowledge of judgment
during the month of January itself and certified copy was
also applied in 2018, he has also obtained the certified
copy of judgment and decree on 17.02.2018. Thereafter,
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
the appellant has not challenged the judgment and decree,
but contended that he fell ill due to disk problem. In
support of his application he has filed an affidavit
contending that he was suffering from disk problem but,
no document is placed along with the affidavit. Apart from
that the reasons assigned in the affidavit are also not
satisfactory and delay has to be explained.
4. The fact that he is having the knowledge of
judgment in the month of January-2018 itself is not in
dispute as he himself has admitted in the affidavit itself,
he has obtained the certified copy in the month of
February-2018 itself but, this appeal was filed in the
month of August-2019. Hence, the reasons mentioned in
the affidavit are not satisfactorily explained each day
delay. Even though he is having a knowledge, he did not
challenge the same and he was awaken only when the
notice was issued by the Tahasildar and no ground is
made out to condone the delay.
NC: 2023:KHC:30893
RSA No. 1435 of 2019
5. Hence, IA No.1/2019 filed by the counsel for
appellants is rejected and consequently the appeal filed by
the appellants' counsel is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
