Karnataka High Court
Malayali B Pushpa vs T M Machaiah on 25 June, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23355
RSA No. 748 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. MALAYALI B. PUSHPA
D/O RAMAKUTTI
W/O BALA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT HODAKANA VILLAGE,
MADIKERE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.M.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T.M.MACHAIAH
Digitally signed S/O T.K.MADAPPA
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT HODAKANA VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MUKKODLU POST,
MADIKERE TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
...RESPONDENT
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2013
PASSED IN R.A.NO.51/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT
JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
SETTNG ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
31.05.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23355
RSA No. 748 of 2021
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on
I.A.No.1/2021, there is a delay of 2531 days in filing the
second appeal.
2. The counsel in support of application an
affidavit is sworn to that on the strength of the judgment
of the judgment of the Trial Court and appellate Court, the
respondent is trying to encroach the property and also
trying to interfering with property. The reason for delay
stated that after the judgment passed by the appellate
Court, Could not able to file present appeal before this
Court, since being the poor lady and not having the
knowledge about the legal proceedings and she does not
have any contacts in Bangalore. In the meanwhile
respondent was assured that he will not interfere with the
possession of the property. Hence, she kept quite all these
days. The reasoning given in the affidavit is only general
reasons are given and not stated anything about even
NC: 2024:KHC:23355
knowledge about the judgment. The only reasons assigned
that she does not have any contact in Bangalore and don't
have the knowledge of legal proceedings and not the case
that she was not having any knowledge about disposal of
the appeal. On perusal of the material also, the Trial Court
granted decree for declaration in coming to the conclusion
that the owner is in possession and declined to grant the
relief of permanent injunction and the same is reversed in
the appellate Court in the year December-2013. This
appeal is filed after lapse of 8 years and not the case of
the appellant that she is not having knowledge about the
disposal of appeal in the year 2013. The only reason
assigned is that respondent assured that he will not
interfere with the possession of the property. The reason
assigned in the affidavit is not satisfactory and no material
is placed on record to condone the delay of 2531 days in
filing the second appeal and appellant has not explained
each day delay to knock the doors of this Court after 8
years. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed. Consequently,
the second appeal is also dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:23355
3. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.As., if any
do not survive for consideration, the same stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RHS
