Karnataka High Court
Kum.Ranjitha vs Avinash on 3 March, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
RSA No. 391 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. KUM.RANJITHA
D/O. LATE. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
2. KUM. RENUKA
D/O. LATE. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
3. SMT. GUTHYAMMA
W/O. LATE. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
Digitally signed
by SHARANYA T SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. MOHAN K N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AVINASH
S/O. HUCCHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
2. NAGARAJA
S/O. HUCCHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
-2-
RSA No. 391 of 2018
3. HUCCHARAYAPPA
S/O. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT CHIKKAJOGIHALLI VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-577 427.
ALSO RESIDING AT A.K.COLONY,
HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
PIN CODE-577 427.
4. SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O. MANJAPPA,
D/O. CHOWDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT A.K.COLONY,
HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
PIN CODE-577 427.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1
IN R.A.NO.9/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, REJECTING I.A.NO.1 FILED U/S.5 OF
THE LIMITATION ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISSED THE
APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.122/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
RSA No. 391 of 2018
2. The appeal filed by these appellants before the First
Appellate Court was dismissed on the ground that there was a
delay of six years, four months and 15 days in filing the appeal.
Apart from that, in paragraph No.14 of the judgment, the First
Appellate Court made an observation that a suit is filed in
O.S.No.122/2010, wherein, they sought for the declaration that
the decree passed in O.S.No.122/2008 is not binding on their
shares and also made an observation that if the appellants
succeeds in the suit filed by them, their shares in the suit
properties will always be there and the same can be carved out
at the appropriate time in a appropriate manner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
also would submit that the suit filed by the appellants herein in
O.S.No.122/2010 has been decreed and the interest of these
appellants has been protected as observed by the First
Appellate Court in R.A.No.9/2017. Hence, this appeal may be
dismissed as having become infructuous.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants, the appeal is dismissed as
having become infructuous.
RSA No. 391 of 2018
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay
does not survive for consideration and the same stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CP
