Karnataka High Court
Smt Venkatalakshmamma vs Smt Lakshminarasamma on 10 October, 2023
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36765
RSA NO.1625 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1625 OF 2021 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
D/O LATE BATHASULA CHIKKAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O MANCHENAHALLI TOWN,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.R. NARAYANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA
(WRONGLY SHOWN IN THE CAUSE
Digitally signed by TITLE OF REGULAR APPEAL AS SMT.
ARUN KUMAR M S LAKSHMAMMA)
Location: High W/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH
Court of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
3. SRI. SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
4. SMT. SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36765
RSA NO.1625 OF 2021
W/O CHINNAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
5. SMT. ANJANAMMA
W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
6. SMT. MANJULA
W/O LATE LAKSHMAHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 ARE
R/AT KOTEGALLI BEEDI,
VEMKATARAMANA SWAMY TEMPLE,
MANCHENAHALLI TOWN,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 211.
7. SRI. P. GANGADHARAPPA
S/O LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
8. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O GANGADHARAPPA AND
LATE LAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE
R/AT KOTEGALLI BEEDI,
VEMKATARAMANA SWAMY TEMPLE,
MANCHENAHALLI TOWN,
GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK,
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 211.
9. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI. VENKATARONAPPA,
(WRONGLY MENTIONED IN ORIGINAL
SUIT AS VENKATAPPA AND IN REGULAR
APPEAL AS VENKATESHAPPA)
D/O LATE BATHASULA CHIKKAPPIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:36765
RSA NO.1625 OF 2021
R/AT PENUKONDA TOWN,
ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.P.N. P.N. RAJESWARA, ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18TH OCTOBER, 2016
PASSED IN REGULAR APPEAL NO.155 OF 2012 ON THE FILE
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 10TH JULY, 2012 PASSED IN ORIGINAL
SUIT NO.303 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GOWRIBIDANUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission along with application
I.A. No.1 of 2023 filed for condonation of delay of 1173 days in
filing the appeal.
2. The appellant herein along with two other plaintiffs
filed suit in Original Suit No.303 of 2009 before the Trial Court
for relief of declaration and injunction, claiming that they are
having right title and possession over the suit schedule
property.
3. Defendants appeared and filed written statement
contending that they are having title over the suit property and
NC: 2023:KHC:36765
RSA NO.1625 OF 2021
the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief of declaration and
injunction.
4. The Trial Court, having considered the material on
record, answered all the issues as negative and dismissed the
suit, by judgment and decree dated 10th July, 2012.
Immediately after dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs 1 and 3
filed appeal in Regular Appeal No.155 of 2012 and same was
dismissed on 18th October, 2016.
5. The present appeal is filed with a delay of 1173 days
and in support of the application to condone the delay, the
affidavit is sworn to by the appellant/plaintiff No.1. It is stated
in the affidavit that the appellant herein is 72 years old and
suffering from Blood Pressure and Diabetes and constantly she
get pain in her legs. Further, it is also stated that the appellant
had a son by name Gangadhar, who passed away on 26th
December, 2012 and because of her ailments in old age, she
has requested Smt. Rathnamma i.e., the appellant No.2 in the
Regular Appeal, who is also pursuing the appeal before the First
Appellate Court to take care of the matter and she was in
contact with the advocate. However, due to her health
NC: 2023:KHC:36765
RSA NO.1625 OF 2021
problem, the said Rathnamma (appellant No.2) could not
contact her advocate and both of them are not aware of the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in
Regular Appeal No.155 of 2012. They come to know that their
appeal was dismissed only when the application was made by
the respondent No.1 for change of Khata.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
who reiterates the grounds urged the affidavit accompanying
the application and brought to the notice of the Court the
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit filed by the appellant.
Having perused the same, the reason assigned by the appellant
is that she is suffering from Blood Pressure and Diabetes and
also her son passed away in the year 2012. It clearly disclose
the fact that, her son passed away in the year 2012 itself and
also appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court in the
year 2012 and the judgment was passed in the year 2016 i.e.,
after four years of death of her son and no documents are
produced before the Court with regard to her ailments are
concerned and also other statement that the said Rathnamma
(appellant No.2) also pursuing with the matter was suffered
from ill-health and to substantiate the same also, no document
NC: 2023:KHC:36765
RSA NO.1625 OF 2021
is placed along with the affidavit before this Court. Appeal was
dismissed in the year 2016 and the present second appeal is
filed in the year 2021 and delay has not been properly
explained by the appellant. Though, asserted that the she is
suffering from ill-health and not substantiated the same, while
seeking condonation of delay, same has to be supported by
documents. However, no such documents are produced and not
properly explained each day of delay. There is an inordinate
delay of 1173 days in filing the appeal, the appellant has not
offered sufficient reason with supported documents. Hence,
question of condoning the inordinate delay of 1173 days in
filing the appeal does not arise. Hence, IA No.1 of 2023 is
dismissed and consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ARK
