Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkatalaksmamma vs Sri. H. C. Rajanna on 18 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26934
RSA No. 793 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.793 OF 2022 (DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATALAKSMAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKAHOMBAIAH,
D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
HIREHALLI VILLAGE,
GANAKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109.
2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE RAMANJANEYA,
D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT RAYAPPA LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
PUTTENAHALLIPALYA,
Digitally signed T.P. WAGATH, 7TH STAGE,
by DEVIKA M
BENGALURU-560 078.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. SMT. KAMALAMMA,
W/O LATE SHIVANNA,
D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HEJJALA VILLAGE AND POST,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109.
4. SMT. GIRIYAMMA,
W/O KRISHNA MURTHY,
D/O SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
CARE OF SMT. GANGAMMA,
NO.4, SHANIDEVARU TEMPLE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26934
RSA No. 793 of 2022
HC-KAR
LAGGERE BADAVANE,
BENGALURU-560 058.
5. SRI. LAKSHMANA GOWDA,
S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.14/1, 3RD CROSS,
5TH MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA NEW EXTENSION,
M.R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026.
6. SRI. GOVINDAIAH,
S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4,
SHANIDEVARU TEMPLE,
RAJESHWARINAGARA,
LAGGERE BADAVANE,
BENGALURU-560 058.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR T.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. H. C. RAJANNA,
S/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
2. SRI. R. ANIL,
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HIREHALLI,
GANAKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP J.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2019
PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.85/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26934
RSA No. 793 of 2022
HC-KAR
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA,
DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF
LIMITATION ACT, AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 17.04.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.201/2000 ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC,
RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION
AND POSSESSION.
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. Heard the learned
counsel for the appellants.
2. R.A.No.85/2011 was dismissed on the ground of
delay of 1102 days in filing the regular appeal. The learned
counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the
First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the
application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The
learned counsel contend that the delay was explained stating
that the father was suffering from paralysis from 2007 to
2010 and also was suffering from other ailments and also
produced the documents and could not contact the advocate
to file the appeal immediately. The learned counsel contend
that though the judgment and decree was passed in 2008,
due to these reasons, could not file the appeal in time and
NC: 2025:KHC:26934
HC-KAR
hence there was a delay of 3 years 7 months. After filing of
the appeal, the father also passed away. The First Appellate
Court dismissed the application considering the admission of
the witness, who was examined before the First Appellate
Court regarding delay is concerned, wherein he categorically
admitted that Sri Lakshmana Gowda, who is his brother was
having knowledge about the judgment as he was coming with
his father to the Trial Court and also further admitted that he
has not appeared on 17.04.2008, but his brother was aware
of the judgment passed in O.S.No.201/2000 and told the fact
of judgment to him and also there was no problem to sign the
application for certified copy of the judgment. The only
reason assigned is that his father was suffering from paralysis
from 2007 to 2010. The First Appellate Court having
considered the admission on the part of the appellant i.e.,
Govindaiah, though Exs.P.1 to 4 are marked, comes to the
conclusion that when the admission is very clear that he
himself and his father were living together and regularly
attending the Court, what prevented them from filing the
appeal in time has not been explained properly.
NC: 2025:KHC:26934
HC-KAR
3. Having considered the grounds urged in the
appeal as well as the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellants, when there was a delay of 1102 days i.e., 3
years 7 months, the same has not been explained properly
and each day delay has to be explained. Apart from that, the
admission is clear that they were having knowledge about the
judgment and both himself and his brother Lakshmana Gowda
used to visit the Court regularly and when the judgment was
passed in 2008, the appeal was filed in 2011. Having taken
note of the said fact into consideration, unless sufficient
reasons are assigned for delay, I do not find any ground to
set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court.
4. It is important to note that the suit was dismissed
and the suit was filed in 2000 seeking the prayer that sale
deed dated 16.11.1990 is illegal and liable to be set aside.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.
After selling the property in 1990, the suit was filed in 2000
and there was a delay. Having taken note of the said fact
that once the sale deed was executed long back in 1990 and
the same was challenged after ten years and all of them were
majors and hence, I do not find any ground on merit also.
NC: 2025:KHC:26934
HC-KAR
The delay has not been properly explained and sufficient
cause has not been shown. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
