Karnataka High Court
Smt Thopamma V V vs Smt V J Saraswathi on 8 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24626
RSA No. 404 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.404 OF 2022 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SMT. THOPAMMA V.V.,
W/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED
1. SRI. V.V.RAVI
S/O LATE V.C.VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SRI. V.V.SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
3. SRI. V.V. RAGHU
Digitally signed S/O LATE V.C.VENKATAPPA
by DEVIKA M AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. SMT. V.V. SUKANYA
D/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
5. SRI. V.V.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O LATE V.C. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
KANNANGALA VILLAGE
AMMATHI ONTINGADI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24626
RSA No. 404 of 2022
HC-KAR
VIRAJPET
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. V.J. SARASWATHI
W/O LATE V.V.JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O KANNANGALA VILLAGE
AMMATHI ONTINAGADI, VIRAJPET
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.
2. SMT. V.J.SABITHA
W/O SRI MADHU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SMT. V.J. SUMITHRA
W/O SRI. ANAND
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
4. SMT. V.J. SWETHA
W/O GIRISH @ LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR
HOSAMANE CIRCLE
BHADRAVATHI-577 301.
5. MUKKATIRA
S/O C. KAVERIAPAP @ JAYA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O SHETTI BANE
AMMATHI, VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAG DISTRICT-571 211.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2017
PASSED IN R.A.NO.112/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24626
RSA No. 404 of 2022
HC-KAR
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDE, KODAGU,
MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.10.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIRAJPET.
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 appellants.
2. This appeal is filed against rejection of I.A.No.1,
wherein prayer was sought before the First Appellate Court to
condone the delay of 337 days. While filing an application
before the First Appellate Court to condone the delay, it is
contended that the appellants were not having the knowledge
about the disposal of the suit and in support of the contention,
the appellant was examined as P.W.1 before the Court. Though
P.W.1 was examined before the First Appellate Court, not
produced any documentary evidence before the Court, since
pleaded about the fact that first defendant was not keeping well
and she was seriously bedridden. The First Appellate Court also
taken note of the fact that While seeking the condonation of
NC: 2025:KHC:24626
HC-KAR
delay, in support of the contention of defendant No.1, not
produced any medical records and further taken note that in
the cross-examination of P.W.1, who has been examined before
the First Appellate Court, in support of delay is concerned, he
categorically admitted that regularly attending before the Trial
Court by engaging the advocate. Hence, the very contention
that not having the knowledge about the disposal of the suit is
not accepted. Apart from that the First Appellate Court also
taken note of the fact that they also engaged the advocate in
FDP proceedings and furthermore, Court Commissioner has also
demarcated the suit schedule property by issuing notice to
P.W.1 and taken note of all these admissions on the part of
P.W.1 while dismissing the application filed to condone the
delay and also observed that when seven defendants are the
appellants in the appeal and if one of the defendant is seriously
ill, what prevented other defendants to file an appeal also
nothing is stated and taken note of the said fact into
consideration, particularly the admission on the part of P.W.1
and also taken note of the judgment of this Court 2014 (3)
KAR.L.J.633 (NARASIMHA ALIAS NARSIMAIAH (SINCE
DECEASED) BY HIS L.Rs V/S. S. JAGADISH AND
NC: 2025:KHC:24626
HC-KAR
ANOTHER) regarding condonation of delay, wherein also
discussion was made that suit was filed for the relief of
recovery of possession, it is not known why eleven others did
not evince interest to file appeal in time, since other 11 persons
have not filed any affidavit and explaining the delay is
concerned and lack of bonafides is attributable to appellants
and also an observation is made that glimpses of merits of the
case was also looked into by the Court and delay application
was dismissed.
3. Having considered the reasons assigned by the First
Appellate Court, I do not find any ground to admit this appeal
since the regular appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay
wherein considered clear admission on the part of PW1 that
having the knowledge of the case and engaged the advocate
both in the original suit as well as in the final decree
proceedings and participated in the final decree proceedings
and commissioner report also filed and the property was
demarcated. After participating in the final decree proceedings
only, filed an affidavit before the Court. Hence, not find any
sufficient reasons to condone the delay. This Court is of the
NC: 2025:KHC:24626
HC-KAR
opinion that the First Appellate Court rightly considered the
application for condonation of delay in coming to the conclusion
that the delay was not explained properly since there were
number of appellants and they have not taken any steps
instead of that participated in the final decree proceedings only
and with an intention to scuttle the proceedings in the final
decree proceedings and even after demarcation of the property,
the regular appeal was filed. Hence, I do not find any ground to
admit and frame the substantive question of law.
4. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST,SN
