- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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, TQ AND DISTRICT GADAG-582101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HALLI RAJASHEKHAR BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) 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, MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.09.19 15:12:43 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12102 RSA No. 100675 of 2025 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 LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22