Karnataka High Court
Sri Veerachari vs Smt. B. Rathnamma on 19 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
RSA No. 1410 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.1410 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VEERACHARI,
S/O LATE A. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
2. SHAMACHARI,
S/O LATE A. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M (BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. B. RATHNAMMA,
W/O B. SANNACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
2. SMT. INDIRAMMA,
W/O NINGACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
RSA No. 1410 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GEEGALI VILLAGE,
HARIHAR TALUK-577230.
3. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O LATE NAGENDRACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
4. SMT. HEMAVATHI,
W/O VIJAYACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O HULIGINAKATTE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577230.
5. SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA,
W/O VIRUPAKSHACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O KATHGI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
6. SRI. YAMUNACHARI,
S/O NAGENDRACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
7. KUM. BHAGYA,
D/O LATE NAGENDRACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK-577230.
8. SRI. PALAKSHACHARI.
S/O LATE GANESHACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
RSA No. 1410 of 2024
HC-KAR
9. SRI. SHANKARACHARI,
S/O LATE GANESHACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
10. SMT. MEGHACHARI,
D/O LATE GANESHACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 ARE
R/O. GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577230.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.64/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HARIHARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2014 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.138/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
HONNALI.
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. This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs
before the Trial Court is that they are the daughters of one late
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
HC-KAR
Sri A. Basappa. The mother of the plaintiffs was one
Smt.Veeramma. One Sri Nagendrachari and defendant Nos.6
to 8 are the brothers of the plaintiffs. The said Nagendrachari
died intestate and defendant No.1 is his wife and defendant
Nos.2 to 5 are his children. The mother of the plaintiffs died
long back. The father of the plaintiffs Basappa died about 25
years ago leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.6 to
8 and a son Sri Nagendrachari as his legal representatives to
succeed to his estate. One of the brothers of the plaintiffs and
husband of defendant No.1 Nagendrachari died intestate about
8 years back leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 5 as his legal
representatives. The said Nagendrachari had an unmarried
daughter Kumari Dakshayanamma, who also died about 3-4
years back. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint
family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. There
was no partition in the joint family. Hence, the plaintiffs are
entitled for 2/6th share over the suit schedule properties.
4. The defendants Nos.1, 4 and 6 to 8 appeared
through their counsel and filed the written statement. The
defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 remained absent and they were
placed exparte. It is contended that the plaintiffs have come
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
HC-KAR
up with a false claim and they are not entitled for any share. It
is also contended that the family properties were partitioned
about 30 to 40 years ago and the parties are living separately.
The plaintiffs had directed the defendants to alienate
Sy.No.164/3A in favour of A.Parameshwarappa and had
received the entire sale consideration amount and had told that
they would not claim any share in the suit properties and
hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and
documentary evidence available on record, comes to the
conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved the case, since the
defendants though filed the written statement, they did not
choose to contest the matter either by cross-examining or
leading any defence evidence.
6. The said order is challenged before the First
Appellate Court with a delay of 1,257 days. The First Appellate
Court having considered the reasons mentioned in the
application for condonation of delay and affidavit, taken note of
the defendants have not led any evidence before the Trial Court
except filing of written statement. The First Appellate Court
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
HC-KAR
also taken note of relationship between the parties and delay is
not properly explained and the same is not substantiated by
placing any material on record and hence, comes to the
conclusion that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the
delay and hence, dismissed the application and consequently
dismissed the appeal.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present
second appeal is filed before this Court.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants before this Court is that the Trial Court committed
an error in granting the relief without examining the material
on record and the First Appellate Court also committed an error
in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and not
considering the matter on merits. Hence, this Court has to
admit the appeal and give an opportunity to the appellants to
contest the matter.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also considering the grounds which have been urged in the
second appeal, though it is contended that the First Appellate
Court committed an error in dismissing the application for
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
HC-KAR
condonation of delay and in order to substantiate the
contention with regard to the delay is concerned, except
examining P.W.1 and producing the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.138/2009, nothing is placed on record.
Hence, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that
no sufficient reasons are given to condone the delay and in
order to condone the delay of 1,257 days, each day's delay
ought to have been explained.
10. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of
SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS., v. KARNATAKA HOUSING
BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
1969, has categorically held that the appellant's counsel first
has to establish sufficient cause with regard to the delay is
concerned and the matter cannot be considered on merits. In
the case on hand, there is an inordinate delay of 1,257 days in
filing the first appeal and the same is not substantiated by
placing any material on record and hence, the question of
condoning the delay does not arise and the First Appellate
Court rightly dismissed the same. Hence, I do not find any
ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question
NC: 2025:KHC:47694
HC-KAR
of law when each day's delay has not been explained and
sufficient cause is not shown and hence, no ground to invoke
Section 100 of CPC.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
