Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lakshminarasamma vs Sri Narasappa on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
RSA No. 1747 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1747 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA
W/O RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/O JYOTHINAGAR
SIRA TOWN, SIRA
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
2. SMT. THIMMARAJAMMA
W/O KENCHANNA
D/O HUCHANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/O JYOTHINAGAR
SIRA TOWN, SIRA
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M 3. SMT. GANGAMMA
Location: HIGH W/O GANGANNA
COURT OF D/O HUCHANNA
KARNATAKA
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT DANDINADIBBA
DODDERI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 112.
4. SMT. SHARADAMMA
W/O SHIVAKUAMR
D/O HUCHANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O JYOTHINAGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
RSA No. 1747 of 2024
HC-KAR
SIRA TOWN, SIRA
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARASAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1(a) SMT. SHARDAMMA
W/O LATE NARASAPPA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O SIRA HALKUR ROAD,
NEAR PALLESWARA TEMPLE
BEHIND DODDAKERE
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
1(b) SMT. ANITHA
D/O LATE NARASAPPA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O CHANNANKUNTE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
1(c) SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR
S/O LATE NARASAPPA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O SIRA TOWN
BHOVI COLONY
SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
1(d) SRI. MARUTHI
S/O LATE NARASAPPA
AGED: MAJOR
FLOWER MERCHANT
R/O LADPURA
SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK
TUMKAURU DISTRICT-572 137.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
RSA No. 1747 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
2(a) SMT. MANJAMMA
W/O LAKSHMIKANTHA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O KUMBARAHATTI
KOTE, SIRA, SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
2(b) SMT. KAVITHA
D/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O. MALLIKAPURAHATTI
SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
2(c) SMT. LATHA
D/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
2(d) SRI. MOHAN
S/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA
AGED: MAJOR
R/O KUMBARAHATTI
KOTE, SIRA
SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
3. SMT. RENUKA
W/O LATE RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE RAMESH
AGED: MAJOR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
RSA No. 1747 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. BHARATH
S/O LATE RAMESH
AGED: MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE
R/O BHOVI COLONY, SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
6. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O HUCHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
R/O. CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
7. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/O. SANTHEPETE
SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
8. YASHODAMMA
DEAD BY LRS.
8(a) NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA
AGED: MAJOR
8(b) NAGANNA
S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA
AGED: MAJOR
8(c) KRISHNAPPA
S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA
AGED: MAJOR
8(d) MANJUNATHA
S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA
AGED: MAJOR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
RSA No. 1747 of 2024
HC-KAR
8(e) KUMARA
S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA
AGED: MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.8(a) TO 8(e) ARE
R/O CHANNANAKUNTE
KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TOWN, SIRA
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
9. SRI. SHIVARAM
S/O HUCHANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/O. BALABASAVANAHALLI
SIRA TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT
ALSO AT:
R/O. SANTHEPETE
SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
10. SMT. MANJULA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
10(a) SRI. SRIRANGAPPA
S/O RAJANNA
AGED: MAJOR
10(b) SRI. ARJUN
S/O SRIRANGAPPA AND MAJULA
AGED: MAJOR
10(c) SRI. KISHORE
S/O SRIRANGAPPA AND MAJULA
AGED: MAJOR
10(d) SMT. PREETHI
D/O SRIRANGAPPA AND MAJULA
AGED: MAJOR
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
RSA No. 1747 of 2024
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/O. VIDYANAGARA
SIRA TOWN
ALSO AT: BANNIGARA
SIRA TOWN
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2016
PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND PARTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 07.08.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellants on
I.A.No.1/2024 and there is a delay of 2,356 days in filing the
present appeal. The impugned judgment and decree was
passed on 12.04.2016 and the present second appeal is filed in
2025.
2. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn
to and in paragraph No.4, it is stated that they are rustic
villagers and they approached the elders in the village
requesting them to advise the respondents/defendants to give
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
HC-KAR
their share in the suit schedule properties and they have taken
some time stating that they will consider their request to give
their share in the suit schedule properties and inspite of said
assurance being given, they did not come forward to give the
share and they are very ignorant of law of limitation prescribed
for filing the appeal and they have not approached the lawyer
to file an appeal in anticipation of the settlement among
themselves and there was no coordination among them and on
the guise of settlement, they did not approach the advocate.
Admittedly, the Trial Court decreed the suit and the same is
reversed in the appeal and the delay in filing the appeal is not
intentional or deliberate.
3. Having considered the fact that judgment was
passed in the month of April, 2016 and present appeal was filed
on 09.12.2024 after lapse of 9 years and reason assigned is
that they have approached the elders and they have stated that
they are going to settle the issue and the fact that they filed
the suit before the Trial Court claiming partition and the same
was granted is not in dispute and subsequently, the same is
modified. The very theory of promise to settle the issue cannot
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
HC-KAR
be believed and apart from that, except stating that they have
approached the elders in the village, not stated any other
reason and it is not the case of the appellants that they are not
having any knowledge about the judgment passed in 2016 and
only reason assigned is that they have approached the elders
and they assured that will settle the matter.
4. Having considered the inordinate delay in filing the
second appeal, I do not find any ground to condone the delay
and the Apex Court in SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS., VS.
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS reported in
2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1969 categorically held that no litigant
should be permitted to be lethargic and apathetic, much less be
permitted by the Courts to misuse the process of law. The Apex
Court also categorically held in paragraph Nos.140 to 142 that
merits of the case cannot be decided, unless the Court is
satisfied with the reasons assigned in the delay application for
condonation of delay and in the absence of sufficient cause for
condonation of delay and each day's delay is explained,
question of condoning the delay and considering the appeal
NC: 2025:KHC:47586
HC-KAR
does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to condone the
delay of 2,356 days in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected. Consequently, the
regular second appeal is also dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
