- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100395 OF 2023 (FDP) C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100304 OF 2023 IN RFA NO.100395 OF 2023: BETWEEN: SRI. JEELAN BASHA S/o. B. NOOR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MUSLIM, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.88/A, WARD NO.24, SHAREEF STREET, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DODDATHIPPAIAH S/o. SADAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. 2. SRI. SANNATHIPPAIAH S/o. SADAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 3. RUDRAMMA D/O. SADAKALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTICT-583 111. 4. RUDRAMMA W/O. RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. 5. SRI. SADAKALAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA W/o. LATE SADAKALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2020 MADE IN F.D.P NO. 29/2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BALLARI AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE FDP APPLICATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. IN RFA NO.100304 OF 2023: BETWEEN: SRI. JEELANBASHA S/o. B. NOORAHAMED AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MUSLIM, RESIDENT OF DOOR NO.88/A, WARD NO.24, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 SHAREEF STREET, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DODDATHIPPAIAH SON OF SADAKALEPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. 2. SRI. SANNATHIPPAIAH SON OF SADAKALEPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. 3. RUDRAMMA D/o. SADAKALEPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTICT-583 111. 4. RUDRAPPA S/O. SADAKALEPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. 5. SRI. SADAKALEPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’s. SMT. SIDDALINGAMMA AND R1 TO R4 HEREIN WHO ARE ALREADY ON RECORD, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. CHAGANUR VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583 111. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B, BALLARI-583 101. 7. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B., DHARWAD-580 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN O.S.NO.158/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BALLARI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND POSSESSION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) RFA No.100304/2023 is arising out of the judgment and preliminary decree dated 31.10.2015 passed in O.S.No.158/2010 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari and RFA No.100395/2023 is arising out of final decree dated 11.05.2020 passed in FDP No.29/2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ballari. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 defendant No.1 in the original suit/respondent No.1 in FDP, respondent No.1 to 4 were the plaintiffs, respondent No.5 was the defendant No.2 and the respondents No.6 and 7 were defendants No.3 and 4. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this regular first appeal are as under: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the children of Sadakalappa i.e., defendant No.2 and grandchildren of late Chagappa. During the life time of their grandfather, he acquired the suit schedule property in his name and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, till today. The defendant No.2 without the knowledge of plaintiffs had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 in 2007 and the said registered sale deed is not binding on them. The plaintiffs are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected between them. The plaintiffs are having 1/5th share each in the suit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 schedule property. The plaintiffs requested defendant No.2 to effect the partition, but defendant No.2 refused to effect the partition. It is stated that defendants No.3 and 4 have initiated acquisition proceedings and issued a notice under Section 4(1) of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and karta of the joint family. Defendant No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 01.01.2008. The sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is binding on the plaintiffs. It is stated that defendants No.3 and 4 acquired portion of land and fixed the compensation @ Rs.12.00 lakhs per acre. It is stated that though, the joint family was consisting other properties but, the plaintiffs have shown the property which is purchased by defendant No.1 as - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 schedule property land. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that they have acquired the land and issued a cheque to the concerned land owners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit against defendant No.4. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of themselves and defendants No.2 as urged? 2. Whether the plaintiff further prove that, they are entitled for 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property as sought? 3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in the year 2007 is not binding on them? 4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the defendant No.2 being Karta of joint family executed the sale deed for joint family necessity in his favour? 5. Whether the defendant No.1 further proves that without seeking the sale deed set aside the plaintiffs are not entitled only relief as urged? 6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession as sought? 7. What order or decree?” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 6. The plaintiffs to prove their case plaintiffs No.1 and 2 got examined themselves as PWs-1 and 2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. In rebuttal, defendants No.1 and 4 have not led their evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, answered issues No.1 to 3 and 6 in the affirmative, issues No.4 and 5 in the negative and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It is declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. Further, declared that the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2007 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property is held to be not binding on the plaintiff. As the defendant No.1 aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 31.10.2015 passed in O.S.No.158/2010, filed an appeal in RFA No.100304/2023. Pursuant to the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.158/2010, the plaintiffs initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.29/2016. The trial Court drawn final - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 decree dated 11.05.2020. The defendant No.1, aggrieved by the final decree dated 11.05.2020 passed in FDP No.29/2016, filed RFA No.100395/2023. 7. The defendant No.1 in both the cases filed application, I.A.No.1/2023 in RFA No.100304/2023 for condoning the delay of 1987 days in filing the appeal and application in I.A.No.1/2023 for condoning the delay of 406 days in filing RFA No.100395/2023. 8. The defendant No.1 in RFA No.100304/2023, in support of application filed an affidavit stating that the appellant was not aware of the judgment till recently i.e., in the first week of June 2023 and he was unwell from 01.11.2015 to 01.06.2023, as he was unable to move and walk properly and doctor advised him to take complete bed rest and not to move about. In the first week of June - 2023, one of his family friend visited his house to enquire about his health condition. During the course of casual talks and discussion of family issues, he informed that there is a rumor that the plaintiffs have won the case. Thereafter, immediately, he tried to contact the earlier - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 advocate to know about the status of the case and he was not available for contact. In the first week of June 2023, he contacted his local counsel at Ballari and sought his advise. He informed to file an appeal against the judgment before the High Court. Thus, the delay has been caused in filing the appeal in RFA No.100304/2023. The defendant No.1 has reiterated the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in RFA No.100304/2023 enclosed to I.A.No.1/2023 in RFA No100395/2023 also. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant No.1. 10. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that the appellant was suffering from ailment and he was advised to take bed rest. He was not aware about the disposal of the suit by the trial Court. He submits that defendant No.1 came to know about the disposal of the suit while he was discussing with his relative and immediately he contacted his local counsel. He submits that defendant No.1 could not file appeal because of ill- - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 health. Further, to buttress his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the applications. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for defendant No.1, in both the cases. 12. The plaintiffs have filed suit in O.S.No.158/2010. The defendant No.1 appeared through the counsel and filed a written statement. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 examined as PWs-1 and 2 and got marked documents. The defendants have not entered the witness box. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide judgment dated 31.10.2015. Thereafter, the plaintiffs initiated the final decree proceedings in FDP No.29/2016. The defendant No.1 herein, appeared through the counsel in the final decree proceedings and the final decree Court - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 appointed a Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner has submitted a report with survey sketch, with respect to suit schedule properties and the counsel appearing for defendant No.1 submitted no objection to the Commissioner’s report, and the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs also submitted no objection to the Commissioners report. The final decree Court considered no objections submitted to the Court Commissioner’s report and accepted the same, and allowed the petition and ordered to draw the final decree as per the preliminary decree and survey sketch, produced by the Court Commissioner was considered as the part and parcel of the decree. Though, the judgment and preliminary decree was passed on 31.10.2015 defendant No.1 appeared in final decree proceedings and did not challenge the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.158/2010 till 2023. Defendant No.1 participated in the final decree proceedings and now, it is stated that he was suffering from ailment since 2015 to 2023. The said statement cannot be accepted for the reasons that the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 defendant No.1 participated in the final decree proceedings and the final decree was drawn vide order dated 11.05.2020. Thus, defendant No.1 has failed to show the sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 1987 days in filing the appeal in RFA No.100304/2023 and 406 days of delay in RFA No.100395/2023. Thus, doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside. 13. The Court should bear in mind while exercising jurisdiction. It has the duty to protect the right of the citizen, but simultaneously, it has to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person without reason approaches the Court, on their own leisure or pleasure, the Court be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis is at a belated stage, should be entertained or not. It may be noted that delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances, delay and laches may not be a fatal, but, in most circumstances, inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the door of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. A Court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. Thus, there is delay in filing the appeal. Such inordinate delay of 1987 days and 406 days in filing the first appeals do not deserve any indulgence. Hence, on the ground of delay and laches, the appeals are liable to be dismissed at the very threshold. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS VS. T.T.MURALI BABU reported in 2014(4) SCC 108, declined to condone the delay of four years in approaching the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MAJJI SANNEMMA @ SANYASIRAO VS. REDDY SRIDEVI & ORS., in Civil Appeal No.7696/2021 disposed of on 16.12.2021 relying on the judgment of the said Court in the case of BASAVARAJ AND ANOTHER VS. SPECIAL LAND - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in (2013)14 SCC 81 has observed as under: “The expression “sufficient cause” cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.” It is further observed that, “Even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute.” It is further observed that,- “In case a party has acted with negligence, lack of bonaf ides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions.” It is observed that, “Each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court”. It is further observed that, “If Courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to the legislature.” - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has declined to condone the delay of 1011 days in preferring the second appeal. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lingeswaran Etc. vs. Thirunagalingam in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.2054-2055/2022 disposed of on 25.02.2022, held that when it is found that the delay is not properly explained, the application to condone the delay is required to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Apex Court declined to condone the delay of 465 days. 15. Considering the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases, defendant No.1 has not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1987 days and 406 days in filing the appeals respectively. Accordingly, both the applications in I.A.No.1/2023 are liable to be dismissed. The appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector vs. Mst. Katiji (supra). There is no dispute in regard to the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:88-DB RFA No. 100395 of 2023 C/W RFA No. 100304 of 2023 16. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any sufficient cause in condoning the delay in filing the appeals. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Applications in I.A.No.1/2023, in both the appeals are rejected, consequently, the appeals are dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50