Karnataka High Court
Basayya S/O Rudrayya Hiremath vs Smt. Devakka D/O Hanamappa Haitapur on 16 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
RSA No. 100675 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100675 OF 2025
(PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. BASAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 63 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BARDUR VILLAGE TQ: MUNDARGI,
DISTRICT: GADAG 582101.
2. SMT. RATHNAVVA W/O. CHANNABASAYYA
SHANTHAYYANAMATH
AGE: 58 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VAKKALIGER STREET,
TQ AND DISTRICT GADAG-582101.
3. RACHAYYA S/O. CHANNABASAYYA
SHANTHAYYANAMATH
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VAKKALIGER STREET,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
TQ AND DISTRICT GADAG-582101.
KALMATH ...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
(BY SRI. HALLI RAJASHEKHAR BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2025.09.19
15:12:43 +0530
AND:
1. SMT. DEVAKKA D/O. HANAMAPPA HAITAPUR
AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREMALLANKERI,
TQ: HUVINHADAGALI DIST: BELLARI-583101.
2. SMT. SUNANDAVVA
W/O. YALLAPPA @ MALLAPPA BUDIHAL
AGE: 56 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
RSA No. 100675 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O. BARDUR VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG-582101.
3. SMT. SUNITA W/O. SHIVANAGOUD GOURA
AGE: 43 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NIRALAGI, TQ: KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
4. SMT. RENAKAVVA W/O. LAXMAPPA TALAWA
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BARDUR VILLAGE,
TQ: MUNDARGI DIST: GADAG-582101.
5. SHIVAKUMAR S/O. YALLAPPA
@ MALLAPPA BUDIHAL
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O: BARDUR,
TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG-582101.
6. SMT. CHANDRAVVA W/O. HULAGAPPA PUJAR
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BARDUR, TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG-582101.
7. SMT. DEVAKKA W/O. YALLAPPA DODDAMANI
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: ADVISOMAPUR,
TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
8. SMT. BIMAVVA W/O. SHARANAPPA GODI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BARDUR, TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG-582101.
9. KANAKAPPA S/O. SATHYAPPA BUDIHAL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BARDUR VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG-582101.
10. PRAKASH S/O. SATHYAPPA BUDIHAL
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
RSA No. 100675 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O: BARDUR, TQ: MUNDARGI,
DIST: GADAG 582101.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RSA IS FILED U/SEC.100 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 02.07.2022 PASSED IN RA
NO.48/2021 BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUNDARGI
REJECTING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.12.2020
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUNDARGI IN OS
NO.94/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA)
Heard on I.A.No.1/2025.
2. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the
Judgment and Decree dated 02.07.2022 passed in
R.A.No.48/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mundaragi.
Along with this appeal, appellants have filed I.A.No.1/2025 under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1043
days in filing the appeal. This application is supported by the
affidavit of appellant No.3-Rachayya S/o.Channabasayya
Shanthayyanamath, in which it is stated that he is the 3rd
appellant in this case and he has sworn the affidavit on his
behalf and also on behalf of appellants No.1 and 2.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
HC-KAR
3. It is stated that respondent no.1/plaintiff had filed suit
for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties. The said suit came to be dismissed. The aggrieved
party preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be allowed
and the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court was set
aside. Both courts below have failed to consider his case. Being
aggrieved, they have filed second appeal before this Court.
4. It is submitted that appellant no.1 is the bona fide
purchaser of one of the B-schedule properties bearing Survey
No.51/2A, measuring 3 acre 01 gunta situated at Tambragundi
Village of Mundargi Taluka, District Gagag under the registered
Sale Deed dated 09.05.2011 for valuable sale consideration.
Appellant no.1 had transferred the said subject property of this
appeal in favour of his sister i.e., appellant no.2 under the name
and style of 'Gift Deed'. The appellant no.2 is his mother. She
had gifted the property under the registered Gift Deed in year of
2017. To that effect, mutation was taken in his favour. Since
then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same without
any hurdle and this is well known to the parties to the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
HC-KAR
5. It is further stated in the affidavit, that he is working in
private sector and residing in Hubballi. Appellant No.1 is
cultivating the same. Appellant No.1 has appeared and filed the
written statement before the Trial Court. Appellant no.1 is an
agriculturist and his whole family is entirely dependent on
agriculture. He along with his family members are residing in the
village and always his main avocation is agriculture. During his
lifetime, he had purchased the agricultural land by one Yallavva
(deceased) under the registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.2011 for
valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase he is in
possession and enjoyment of the same. When this situation
stood thus, two months back one of his relative came and
informed regarding the case status and its results. He got
surprised and informed to appellant nos.1 and 2. After having
the deep discussion, he approached the Advocate and got the
legal assistance. But at the same time, he was in financial
trouble and was unable to meet the necessary fee and
expenditure of the case. Then he contacted his relatives and
shared everything and arranged the money for bearing the
Advocate's fee and expenditure of the case. Immediately after
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
HC-KAR
arranging the money, he has applied for certified copies and got
the same and thereafter, filed this appeal.
6. Appellant no.1 is the bona fide purchaser of one of the
suit properties. As per the due procedure of law, same was
transferred to appellant no.2. They are relatives and having good
relationship with each other and said properties are in common
possession and enjoyment without any hurdles. The delay is not
intentional one. It is also submitted that recently he came to
know that already the plaintiff/respondent had filed the final
decree proceedings before the same Court and now the Court
Commissioner may be appointed at any time. On all these
grounds, sought for allowing of the application.
7. A perusal of the Judgment of the Senior Civil Judge,
Laxmeshwar sitting at Mundaragi reveals that Judgment in
R.A.No.48/2021 was pronounced on 02.07.2022. The present
appellants, who are respondents No.10 to 12, have appeared
before the first appellate Court through Sri MMN Advocate. They
have filed this appeal after lapse of 1043 days.
8. On perusal of the affidavit, I do not find any sufficient
cause to condone the abnormal delay of 1043 days in filing the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102
HC-KAR
regular second appeal. Hence, I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
CKK
CT-CMU
