- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.100373 OF 2024 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KALAKAMMA W/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKABANNIGOL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL – 584 121. 2. SHRI. ANDANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKABANNIGOL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL – 584 121. …APPELLANTSS (BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. KALYANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKABANNIGOL, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL – 584 121, NOW RESIDING AT RAMNAGAR, DAVANAGERI, DIST: DAVANAGERI – 577 005. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AN DECREE DATED 03.08.2016 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT YELBURGA IN R.A.NO.10/2012 INSOFAR AS PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT YELBURGA IN O.S.NO.107/2011 AND THIS COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.02.2012 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT YELBURGA IN O.S.NO.107/2011 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the defendants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in OS No.107/2011 dated 07.02.2011 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga (for short, ‘trial Court’), by which the trial Court partly decreed the suit, granting 1/3rd share in the suit Schedule ‘A’ properties to the plaintiff and rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for any share in the Schedule ‘B’ properties, which is modified by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2016 passed in RA No.10/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga (for short, ‘First Appellate Court’), by which the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the defendants held that defendant No.1 was entitled for 1/9th share in the suit Schedule ‘A’ properties, and Defendant No.2 and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024 plaintiff are entitled for 4/9th shares each in suit schedule properties. 2. There is a delay of 2014 days in filing the present appeal. I.A.No.1/2024 is filed seeking condonation of delay. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, submits that delay in filing the appeal is on account of illiteracy and ignorance on the part of the appellants which led to the delay in they approaching their counsel and instructing them to file the appeal in time. Further, that they had no sufficient source of income to arrange the funds for filing the appeal. As such, there was a delay in filing appeal. Except the above, nothing is pleaded. 4. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Final Decree Proceedings were initiated by the respondent-plaintiff in FDP No.11/2016 and the same has been closed on satisfaction of the decree passed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024 5. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that in the Final Decree Proceedings parties had entered into compromise by filing an application. He submits that the said proceedings were disposed of pursuant to joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner and the respondents under Order XXIII Rule 3 of read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 29.11.2021. 6. In the light of aforesaid admitted position of Final Decree Proceedings having been closed on satisfactory of the preliminary decree, the reasons assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay of 2014 days in filing the appeal are not satisfactory when the parties including the defendants herein have admittedly participated in the said Final Decree Proceedings and have closed the same by entering into compromise. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024 7. Be that as it is. Even otherwise, the appeal has no merits warranting interference. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the sons of defendant No.1 and deceased Basanagouda Police Patil. Admittedly, suit ‘A’ schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The trial Court on this admitted position had granted 1/3rd share equally to the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. 8. In the appeal filed by the defendants, the First Appellate Court taking note of the facts that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and that Basanagouda Police Patil having passed away on 21.03.1998, held that if in the event of a notional partition during his lifetime, he would have been entitled for 1/3rd share, and that defendant No.1 being his wife would have got her 1/3rd share out of 1/3rd share of deceased Basanagouda Police Patil and further held that she would have been entitled for only 1/9th share in the schedule ‘A’ properties and the reminder would be divided equally - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7480 RSA No. 100373 of 2024 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Accordingly, modified the shares allotting 1/9th share to defendant No.1 and 4/9th share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1. No error of any nature whatsoever can be found on this ground as well. 9. In that view of the matter, nothing survive for consideration. IA No.1/2024 is dismissed consequently, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VMB CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15