- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1185 OF 2024 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: 1. smt. vani, w/o late ashwatha aged about 48 years r/at No.2355 near nagarjuna floor mill opposite siddarameshwara convention hall kergehalli main road bogadi mysore – 570026 2. sri shashanka a s/o late ashwatha aged about 24 years r/at No.2355 near nagarjuna floor mill opposite siddarameshwara convention hall kergehalli main road bogadi mysore – 570026 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI n devadass, sr. ADVOCATE for Sri s roopesh kumar, advocate) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 AND: 1. sri kalaiah dead by lrs sri vijaya s/o late kalaiah aged about 58 years 2. Sri raghavendra prasad k s/o late kalaiah aged about 55 years 3. Smt. jyothi d/o late kalaiah aged about 54 years 4. Smt. poornima d/o late kalaiah aged about 52 years 5. Smt. arundathi d/o late kalaiah aged about 50 years 6. Smt. indumathi d/o late kalaiah aged about 48 years All are r/at No.64 14th main road kukkarahalli saraswathipuram mysuru - 570009 Karnataka 7. sri chandrashekaraiah s/o late sannathammaiah aged about 63 years r/at No.246, 3rd cross 4th main, ‘h’ block - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 ramakrishnagar mysuru – 570022 8. Smt. thayamma w/o a s mariyappa aged about 64 years r/at avarthi village harohalli hobli periyapatna taluk – 571104 Smt. sakamma mother of ashwath defendant No.10 9. sri ramachandra s/o late javaraiah aged about 62 years r/at goragundi village kasakbka holbi k r nagar taluk – 571602 10. Smt. rathnamma w/o ramchandra aged about 60 years r/at sanyasipura village hosa agarahara hobli k r nagar taluk – 571601 11. Smt. ngagamma w/o h subbaiah aged about 58 years r/at No.1308 5th cross, paduvana road kuvempunagara mysuru – 570023 12. Smt. chintamani w/o k p suresh aged about 57 years r/at mcf hassan – 573201 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 13. sri chaluvaraju s/o late javaraiah aged about 54 years r/at No.4, eshwaranagara 2nd cross, kantenahalli new layout k r nagara – 571602 14. Smt. kaivalya w/o h chaluvarau aged about 52 years working address typist mysuru law court mysuru – 570005 15. sri accutananda s/o late javaraiah aged about 50 years r/at No.3355 3rd stage, 7th main 4th cross, ‘h’ block kanakadasanagara mysuru – 570026 16. sri basavaraju s/o late javaraiah aged about 48 years r/at goragundi village k r nagara taluk – 571602 17. sri chandramouli s/o late javaraiah aged about 43 years r/at No.3355 3rd stage, 7th main 4th cross, ‘h’ block kanakadasangara mysuru – 570026 …RESPONDENTS - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 This RSA is FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.II IN R.A.NO.22/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR and etc. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR admission, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 5 years, 2 months and 10 days in filing the appeal and though even taken the advantage of the COVID period, there was a delay of 3 years in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The reason assigned before the Trial Court that they are in possession of the property and also property was gifted in favour of Ashwath vide document dated 08.11.2012 and in ‘A’ schedule property, one Basavaraj and in ‘B’ schedule property, they are in possession of the property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 She being an illiterate, could not contact the advocate and file the appeal in time and hence, there is a delay in filing the appeal and the same has to be condoned. Except this reason, no other reasons are assigned with regard to the notice and disposal of the suit stating that when they came to know about the same. In the affidavit which is filed before the First Appellate Court it is stated that her husband passed away in the year 2021 and son also passed away in 2021. But the fact is that when the suit was filed in the year 2013, inspite of engaging the counsel before the Trial Court, did not contest the matter and ultimately, the same was decreed in the year 2016. From 2016 till 2021 not made any efforts to file the appeal. Even FDP also filed in 2019 and notice was issued and same is also admitted during the course of cross-examination by PW1 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while considering the delay application, in paragraph 11 taken note of all these factors into consideration and comes to the conclusion that there is no supporting evidence to believe the case of appellants. Even with regard to the health issues also, nothing is placed on record. Apart from that each day delay has not been explained. While condoning the delay, the Court has to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 take note of sufficient cause. In the case on hand, though suit was disposed of in 2016, in 2021, appeal was filed. Even inspite of taking the advantage of COVID period, there was a delay in filing the first appeal and no sufficient cause is explained to condone the delay before the First Appellate Court stating that under what circumstances, the appellant has been prevented by filing an appeal. When sufficient cause is not shown and even the affidavit is also very bald except pleading that she is an illiterate, nothing is disclosed about when the appellant came to know about the disposal of the judgment as well as what effort was made to file the appeal. Only general reasons are given in a casual manner without explaining the sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, I do not find any ground to entertain the second appeal when there was an inordinate delay in filing the first appeal and First Appellate Court taken note of all these factors into consideration. Thus, no ground is made out to admit the appeal and to frame substantial question of law invoking Section 100 of CPC. 3. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51417 RSA No. 1185 of 2024 ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. 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