Karnataka High Court
Sathyamurthy @ Satisha vs Shanthakumari on 15 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26091
RSA No. 1340 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1340 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SATHYAMURTHY @ SATISHA
S/O SHADAKSHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O ANNENAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-572 116.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHANTHAKUMARI
Digitally signed W/O R.S. MANJUNATHA
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
Location: HIGH R/O SUBRAMANYA NAGAR
COURT OF ARSIKERE TOWN
KARNATAKA HASSAN DISTRICT-572 116.
2. SHADAKSHARAIAH
S/O DODDAIAHSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/O SUBRAMANYA NAGAR
ARSIKERE TOWN
HASSAN DISTRICT-572 116.
3. SUMANGALALA
W/O SURESH JINKARI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26091
RSA No. 1340 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O TUNGABADRA COLONY
BEHIND LIC OFFICER
HARIHAR NAGAR
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-572 116.
4. SAVITA W/O SURESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O SUBRAMANAYA NAGARA
ARSIKERE TOWN-572 116.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1
IN R.A.NO.7/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, ARASIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.07.2018 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.163/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, ARASIKERE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
This matter is listed for admission and I have heard
learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The counsel appearing for the appellant would
contend that no opportunity was given before the Trial Court
and also before the First Appellate Court. The counsel also
would contend that in the First Appellate Court also delay of
434 days was rejected, in coming to the conclusion that no
NC: 2025:KHC:26091
HC-KAR
proper reasons are assigned, inspite of reasons are assigned
and documents are also produced for having taken treatment
i.e., OPD chit of J.C. Hospital, Arsikere which shows that on
03.10.2018, Satisha took treatment for dengue fever. The
scanning report also shows that he was diagnosed on
04.05.2019 and he took treatment in the month of October
2018. Hence, the approach of both the Trial court and the First
Appellate Court is erroneous.
3. Having perused the material available on record,
suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession of
her 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties contending that
suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff
and defendants. The plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1
and other defendants are brothers and sisters of plaintiff and
though defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 are represented through
counsel, personally appeared before the Court and sought time
to engage counsel. Accordingly, they engaged the counsel and
filed Vakalath on 26.04.2017 and thereafter even though time
was given, written statement was not filed. Hence, taken as
written statement not filed in the month of August 2017. Even
when the evidence was not led by the plaintiff on three or four
NC: 2025:KHC:26091
HC-KAR
occasions, no attempt was made to file any written statement
and ultimately, evidence was recorded on 19.03.2018 and suit
was disposed of in the month of July 2018. Even after recording
the evidence of plaintiff on 19.03.2018, no such effort was
made to file written statement to contest the matter.
4. It is also important to note that judgment was
pronounced on 03.07.2018 and regular appeal was filed in
2020 with the delay of 434 days. No doubt, the counsel
appearing for the appellant brought to notice of this Court that
he was suffering from chicken guinea and kidney stones and
got admitted as an inpatient in hospital and he was unable to
file an appeal and hence there was a delay of 434 days, the
respondents have filed objections to the application for
condonation of delay and even evidence was recorded. In
support of his contention, he produced the medical documents
i.e., prescriptions and scanning report. The OPD chit of J.C.
Hospital, Arsikere shows that on 03.10.2018, the appellant took
treatment for dengue fever. The scanning report of Vismaya
Scan and X-rays Center shows that Sathisha was diagnosed on
04.05.2019. But, the very document of OPD chit dated
03.10.2018 is contrary that he took treatment for dengue
NC: 2025:KHC:26091
HC-KAR
fever. But, scanning report is dated 04.05.2019 and again, he
took treatment for dengue fever on 03.10.2018 and medical
reports show that he underwent scanning on 04.05.2019 and
report is also very clear that he is normal and there is nothing
in the report to show that he was advised bed rest for further
medical treatment and the same is also taken note of by the
First Appellate Court while considering the delay and there was
seven months gap from the previous medical report and even
after the treatment also, he did not put any effort to file appeal
till 2020 and what prevented him in filing the appeal
immediately after taking the treatment also, nothing is stated
and the same is also taken note of by the First Appellate Court
while considering the delay. Hence, comes to the conclusion
that there is no proper reasons given for the delay in filing the
appeal and the appellant also not examined himself to prove
regarding the delay and given an opportunity to the
respondents to cross- examine him regarding the same, except
production of the documents OPD chit and scanning report and
not substantiated his case by entering into the witness box.
Hence, the Trial Court did not accept the reasons assigned for
delay is concerned, since there was a delay of 434 days.
NC: 2025:KHC:26091
HC-KAR
5. It is also important to note that having considered
the claim made by the plaintiff also in respect of the suit
schedule properties are ancestral properties, that too suit is
filed by the daughter against the father and mother, sister and
brothers and 1/5th share is granted. Considering the
genealogical tree which is placed along with the appeal also,
there were 5 persons and hence, 1/5th share is granted. When
such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit and
frame any substantial question of law.
6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The regular second appeal is dismissed and consequently,
I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 2/2024 also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
