Karnataka High Court
Brahmachari vs S. Ramamurthy on 28 October, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42799
RSA No. 672 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 672 OF 2023 (DEC/POS-)
BETWEEN:
BRAHMACHARI
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE BRAMHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
2. TRIVENI
D/O LATE BRAMHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
Digitally signed 3. DHANALAKSHMI
by DEVIKA M
D/O LATE BRAMHACHARI
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
4. B YOGEESWARACHARI
S/O LATE BRAMHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
5. JAGDEESWARACHARI
S/O LATE BRAMHACHARI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT B K HALLI VILLAGE
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42799
RSA No. 672 of 2023
HC-KAR
PAVAGADA TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561202
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NARASI REDDY G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
S. RAMAMURTHY
S/O VEERABHADRAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1. PADMAVATHAMMA
W/O S RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
2. VEERACHARI
S/O S RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
3. PARVATHAMMA
D/O S RAMAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT SHRAVANDNA HALLI VILLAGE
KODIGENA HALLI HOBLI
MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572132
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2018
PASSED IN R.A.NO.5023/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42799
RSA No. 672 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard on I.A.No.1/2023 wherein the learned counsel for
the appellants prayed this Court to condone the delay of 805
days in filing the appeal.
2. In the affidavit accompanying to the application, it
is sworn by the appellants that this matter is a second round of
litigation. Earlier, the judgment and decree was passed on
03.02.2006 in O.S.No.89/2001. The said judgment and decree
was challenged before the First Appellate Court in
R.A.No.32/2009 and the First Appellate Court also dismissed
the appeal vide order dated 16.12.2011 and thereafter,
R.S.A.No.1236/2012 was filed before this Court challenging the
said concurrent finding of both the Courts. This Court allowed
the said second appeal and the matter was remitted back to
the Trial Court. After remand of the matter, the Trial Court
passed the judgment and decree on 31.08.2017 and the said
judgment and decree was challenged by filing an appeal in
NC: 2025:KHC:42799
HC-KAR
R.A. No.5023/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed on
03.11.2018.
3. It is further stated in the application that their
father passed away on 19.08.2019 leaving behind themselves
and their mother. The appellants came to know about the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in the
month of January 2023 and thereafter, they immediately
approached the advocate and obtained the certified copy of the
documents and filed the present appeal before this Court. Thus,
the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional, bona fide. Hence,
prayed this Court to condone the delay of 805 days in filing the
appeal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also considering the material and record, it discloses that
this is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier,
the judgment and decree was passed in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent and the same was confirmed but this Court
set aside the judgments of both the Courts and remitted back
the matter to the Trial Court. The Trial Court once again
passed the judgment and decree in favour of the
NC: 2025:KHC:42799
HC-KAR
respondent/plaintiff and the same was also confirmed by the
First Appellate Court. Thus, it appears that on twice, the
judgment and decree was passed in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that
R.A.No.5023/2017 was dismissed on 03.11.2018 and the
reason assigned by the appellants for delay in filing this appeal
is that their father passed away on 19.08.2019 and they are
not aware of the appeal filed by their father since, during
lifetime of their father, he was personally looking after the
above said disputes. The reason assigned by the appellants
cannot be believed for the reason that this litigation is a second
round of litigation from the Trial Court to the High Court. The
father of the appellants passed away on 19.08.2019 itself but
the present appeal is filed in the year 2023 i.e., after the lapse
of almost five years. The fact that the appellants were not
aware of the disputes and the said contention is not supported
by the materials produced before this Court. Having considered
the reasons assigned in the affidavit that they were not aware
of the disputes and their father was looking after the disputes
cannot be a reason when the litigation between the parties
from 2001 since original suit was filed and numbered as
NC: 2025:KHC:42799
HC-KAR
89/2001 and family is litigating the property from 2001 till
2018, hence, reason assigned by the appellants cannot be
accepted. Each day delay has to be explained properly but in
the case on hand, no sufficient cause is shown to condone the
delay of 805 days in filing the appeal inspite of excluding the
COVID period while calculating the delay and hence, delay of
805 days is not properly explained. Thus, I do not find any
ground to issue notice against the respondents since there is an
inordinate delay of five years from 2018 to 2023 and sufficient
cause is not shown. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any,
do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
