Karnataka High Court
Sri. Basavaraju vs Smt Nanjamma on 6 November, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44909
RSA No. 1635 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE BANEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE BANEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/A IRIKASANDAR
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAVI PRAKASH V., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by JUANITA AND:
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SMT NANJAMMA
KARNATAKA W/O LATE SHIVANNA
D/O LATE BANEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A IRIKASANDARA,
CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT -572216.
2. SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVA SHANKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44909
RSA No. 1635 of 2023
HC-KAR
3. MOHAN KUMAR
S/O LATE SHIVA SHANKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
4. SMT LATHA
D/O LATE SHIVA SHANKARAIAH
W/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE
R/A SINGIPURA, BELLAVI HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK -572101.
5. SRI DODDAIAH
S/O LATE BANEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
6. SRI SHIVANANAJAIAH
S/O SRI DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
7. SMT CHANDRAMMA
W/O SRI SHIVANANAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
8. SRI JAGADISH
S/O SRI DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 ARE
R/A IRIKASANDRA, CHELUR HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.08.2023.
PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN RA No.31/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE
APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.10.2016 PASSED IN OS No. 338/2013 ON THE FILE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44909
RSA No. 1635 of 2023
HC-KAR
OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBITRIAL
COURT PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT. APPELLATE COURT
DISMISSED APPEAL AND SUIT FOR PARTITION.
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 appearing for the
appellants.
2. This matter is listed for admission and the
appeal is filed against the concurrent findings.
3. The trial court granted the relief of 1/6th share
in respect of the share of the father, since father has not
executed any testamentary document in favour of any of
the children. Having considered the material available on
record, O.S.No.338/2013 was disposed of on 20.10.2016
and first appeal was filed in the year 2020 after four years
of passing of the judgment and decree and four years of
delay was not properly explained. Hence, the first
appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that
the appellant has shown his ignorance and his father and
NC: 2025:KHC:44909
HC-KAR
uncle appointed one advocate and admitted his uncle
Shivashankaraiah died. After the death of
Shivashankaraiah, the notice has been served upon the
legal representatives of Shivashankariah and legal
representatives of Shivashankaraiah appeared in Final
Decree Proceedings and filed their objections and
appellant himself has produced the order sheet in FDP
No.9/2017 and also shown his ignorance that Court
Commissioner was appointed. To that application, his
father and other defendants have also filed objections. It
also says that his father was walking properly but he is
suffering from joint pain and considering the testimony of
PW1, comes to the conclusion that proper explanation is
not given for four years delay in filing the appeal and order
sheet in O.S. No.338/2013 which clearly depicts that his
father contested the suit as defendant No.5 and he was
alive. As per admission, it is very clear that his father was
hale and healthy and though appellate court comes to the
conclusion that appellant reveals that in order to drag the
NC: 2025:KHC:44909
HC-KAR
matter and to avoid FDP No.9/2017, without any proper
reason, with malafide intention, filed appeal in RA
No.31/2020 after four years. Hence, the appellate court
comes to the conclusion that no ground was made to
condone the delay and dismissed the same. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal of the first appeal, present
second appeal is filed before this Court and contended that
trial court is not right in granting notional share to the
plaintiff even after she admitting the fact that partition has
taken place between defendants No.1 to 5 long back and
revenue entries found based on that partition and question
of entitled for notional partition doesn't arise. Hence, this
Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial
questions of law.
4. Having considered the grounds which have
been urged and also the pleadings of the parties and trial
court also granted the relief of 1/6th share in respect of the
share of the father and not in respect of the entire
property and the same is also notional share in respect of
NC: 2025:KHC:44909
HC-KAR
property of the father and also appeal was not filed within
time, appellate court dismissed the same on the ground
of delay since there was a delay of four years and when
such being the case, delay of four years has not been
explained by the appellant inspite of FDP proceedings
initiated and even the father of the appellant had also
contested the FDP proceedings by filing the objections.
Hence, I do not find any ground to admit and frame any
substantial questions of law.
5. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
KLY
CT: JL
