Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sakamma vs Smt. Jayalakshmamma on 10 July, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25190
RSA No. 564 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.564 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAKAMMA,
DEAD BY LRS.
1(a) SMT. BYATAMMA,
D/O LATE BYATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. SRI. BYATARANGAIAH,
S/O LATE BYATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE BYATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
ALL THE ABOVE ARE RESIDING
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AT BYATAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA SURIGENAHALLI MAZARE,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572 216.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK D.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA,
D/O LATE KARIYAMMA,
W/O NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 34,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25190
RSA No. 564 of 2024
HC-KAR
2ND STAGE, 21ST CROSS,
MALAGALA, NAGARBHAVI,
BENGALURU-560 072.
2. SMT. LAKKAMMA,
W/O LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS.
3. SMT. RANGAMMA,
D/O LATE KARIYANNA,
W/O RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. SMT. BORAMMA,
D/O LATE KARIYANNA,
W/O BYATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
5. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
W/O LATE KARIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDING AT BYATAPPANAPALYA,
SURIGENAHALLI KAVAL,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572 216.
6. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O KUNTEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HULIPURA,
NAGASANDRA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572 134.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.V. AMARNATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R5 AND R6;
SRI. C.S. MADHU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
NOTICE TO R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2023
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25190
RSA No. 564 of 2024
HC-KAR
PASSED IN R.A.NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 09.09.2016 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.93/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Court had earlier heard the matter in part
and directed the learned counsel for the appellants to produce
the exhibits, which have been marked in R.A. Court to
condone the delay since there was a delay of 5 years 6
months in filing the appeal. Now the learned counsel has
produced the copy of the document Ex.P.7, which was marked
before the Appellate Court.
3. Having perused the document of Ex.P.7, it is only
a report dated 03.12.2008. On perusal of the records, the
judgment of the Trial Court was passed on 09.09.2016 and
the appeal was filed in 2022 almost after 6 years and no
document is placed on record in between 2016 to 2022.
NC: 2025:KHC:25190
HC-KAR
Hence, the Appellate Court while considering the I.A. for
condonation of delay, having noticed that there was a delay of
6 years in filing the appeal, comes to the conclusion that the
delay has not been explained. On perusal of the order
impugned dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the First Appellate Court taken note of
Ex.P.1, which shows that service of suit summons on
defendant No.1 was made on her daughter-in-law and the
same was held sufficient by the Trial Court. Apart from that,
the First Appellate Court in paragraph No.12 taken note that
the material on record discloses that the appellant urged
ground of ill-health for not filing of the appeal within time
pertaining to the judgment dated 09.09.2016 and produced
the medical records dated 03.12.2008. This shows that there
is no sufficient cause shown by the appellant to condone the
inordinate delay of almost 6 years in filing the appeal.
4. Even inspite of this Court granted time to produce
the exhibits which have been marked in the First Appellate
Court, the only document placed before the First Appellate
Court is of the year 2008 and the suit was disposed of in 2016
and no sufficient reasons are assigned. Having considered
NC: 2025:KHC:25190
HC-KAR
the reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court, I do not
find any ground to entertain the second appeal and there was
an inordinate delay of almost 6 years as observed by the First
Appellate Court and in the absence of sufficient reasons to
condone the delay of 5 years 6 months, the First Appellate
Court rightly dismissed the appeal. No ground is made out to
admit the appeal and frame any substantial question of law.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
