Karnataka High Court
Smt.Yashoda vs Sri.Muniraju on 10 June, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
RSA No. 2051 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2051 OF 2021 (DEC/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.YASHODA
W/O LATE C SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. SRI SHASHIKUMAR
S/O LATE C SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
3. SRI C CHINNAPPA
S/O LATE C SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M APPELLANTS No.1 TO 3 ARE
Location: HIGH R/AT No.24, UTTARE GOWDA STREET
COURT OF NEAR MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE
KARNATAKA
NEAR SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560027
[C SHANKAR - PLAINTIFF No.1 IN
O.S.No.1168/207 IS DEAD, HIS LRS ARE
BROUGHT ON RECORD APPELLANTS No.1 - 3]
4. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE KENGERI CHINNAPPA
W/O NAGARAJ
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
RSA No. 2051 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO 16/A2
KRUMBIGAL ROAD
LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI
BENGLAURU - 560004
ALSO R/AT KONGHTATTA VILLAGE
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST - 560203
5. SMT. KAMALAMMA @ KAMALA
D/O LATE KENGERI CHINNAPPA
W/O SHAMSUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO 16/A2, KRUMBIGAL ROAD
LALBAGH WEST GATE
BENGALURU - 560004
APPELLANT No.1 TO 5 REPRESENTS THROUGH
THEIR GPA HOLDER - S GIRISHA
S/O SHAMSUNDER
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT No.16/B2, KRUMBIGAL ROAD
LALBAGH WEST GATE
BENGALURU - 560004
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PRADEEP H S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI MUNIRAJU
S/O MANNIAHNAVARA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. SRI MUNIKRISHNA
S/O MANNIAHNAVARA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
RSA No. 2051 of 2021
HC-KAR
RESPONDENT No.1 & 2 ARE
R/AT MELINAHOTA HAKKUPETE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15050/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI AND ETC.
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 appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 05.02.2020 passed in R.A.No.15050/2018 by the First
Appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated
08.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.1168/2007 by the Trial Court.
2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court that they are the absolute owners of the
suit schedule properties and the defendants are in illegal and
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
unauthorised possession of the suit schedule properties. The
defendants appeared and contend that their father
M.Muniyhappa has purchased the suit schedule properties
from the mother of the plaintiffs under the registered sale
deeds dated 09.06.1975 and 30.08.1976 and hence, they are
in possession and enjoyment of the same as owners. The
Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in coming
to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties was
purchased in the year 1975 and 1976 by the father of the
defendants from the mother of the plaintiffs.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial
Court, an appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in
R.A.No.15050/2018 and while filing the said appeal, there was
a delay of 1820 days. Hence, the First Appellate Court having
considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on
record formulated the points on delay as well as interference
in the judgment of the Trial Court and allowed the parties to
lead their evidence. The First Appellate Court also taken note
of the fact that the appellants have not stated anything that
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
the appellants were suffering from any ailments which
prevented them from approaching the Court in time to prefer
an appeal. However, in the evidence, the appellant has
produced the medical documents which were marked as
Exs.C2 to C4 to show that appellant No.5 is suffering from
knee pain. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the
fact that the suit was filed on 13.12.2007 and the judgment
was delivered by the Trial Court on 08.11.2013 and also the
answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 was discussed and
also the judgments which have been relied upon by the
counsel for the appellants are also considered by the First
Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that there is no
dispute that if the Court finds merit in the appeal considering
the grounds urged therein, the Appellate Court must be little
liberal in exercising its discretion to condone the delay in the
interest of justice. Having made such observation, comes to
the conclusion that in the present case, it is an admitted fact
that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired
properties of the grandmother of the plaintiffs which was sold
in favour of father of the defendants through registered sale
deeds in the year 1975 and 1976 itself and since then, they
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
Therefore, even on merit also, the appellants have no case
and also discussed in detail that it is settled position of law
that though the discretion is given to the Appellate Court to
condone the delay, there must be a satisfaction of the Court
in respect of the cause shown by the appellant and the same
must be acceptable and genuine. The burden is upon the
appellants to show the sufficient cause which prevented them
from to approach the appellate Court in time by filing the
appeal. The First Appellate Court also made an observation
that though the appellants have placed medical records, the
same are in respect of the knee pain and also an observation
is made that appellant Nos.1 to 4 are not having any ailment
to file the appeal and comes to the conclusion that in order to
condone the delay of more than five years, no sufficient cause
is shown by the appellants and hence, dismissed the appeal.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court as
well as the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is
filed before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the First Appellate Court has not considered
the material on record and committed an error in dismissing
the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that
there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1820
days and this Court has to frame the substantial question of
law with regard to the dismissal of the appeal on the ground
of delay. The learned counsel would contend that the First
Appellate Court committed an error in making the discussion
with regard to the merits of the case also and the same is not
warranted and this Court has to frame the substantial
question of law.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellants and also on perusal of the material available on
record, particularly in the suit before the Trial Court, the
plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration to declare
that they are the absolute owners. Nothing is stated with
regard to the sale deed which was executed in the year 1975
and 1976 by the mother of the plaintiffs and suppressed the
very sale, but sought for the relief of declaration. The
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
defendants took the specific defence that there was a sale
made by the mother of the plaintiffs on 09.06.1975 and on
30.08.1976 and placed on record the C.C. of the sale deed of
the year 1975 and 1976 as per Exs.D.6 and 7. The Trial
Court taken note that once the property was already sold,
P.W.1 pleads ignorance about those persons on what basis
their names have been mentioned in the records. The Trial
Court also taken note of that after the sale, possession was
with the defendants and dismissed the suit.
8. It is important to note that the First Appellate
Court while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in
view of the judgments referred in the appeal, taken note of it
and made an observation that on merits, if it requires
consideration, the Appellate Court must consider the delay in
liberal approach. The First Appellate Court has made an
observation with regard to the sale deed of the year 1975 and
hence the very contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the First Appellate Court while considering the
application for condonation of delay, discussed the same on
merits cannot be accepted and the same is an observation
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
with regard to the fact that earlier there was a sale deed of
the year 1975. The First Appellate Court also taken note of
the evidence of P.W.1, who is the general power of attorney
holder and none of the appellants have come before the Court
and only examined the general power of attorney holder and
even he is not aware about the facts of the litigation and the
same is also taken note of by the Appellate Court. It is
important to note that while seeking for condonation of delay
of 1820 days, sufficient cause must be shown and no such
sufficient cause is shown. Though relied upon the medical
certificate, the same is only for knee pain and no document is
placed before this Court also for having taken treatment as an
inpatient. The delay from 2013 to 2018 has not been
explained and each day delay has to be explained and the
same has not been explained even though an opportunity is
given to explain the delay by allowing the witnesses to show
sufficient cause. When such being the case and when there is
an inordinate delay of 1820 days, the same is not
satisfactorily explained by the appellants. Hence, I do not
find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:19621
HC-KAR
question of law as contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants and there are no grounds.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN/MD
