- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26934 RSA No. 793 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.793 OF 2022 (DEC/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VENKATALAKSMAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKAHOMBAIAH, D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, HIREHALLI VILLAGE, GANAKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109. 2. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RAMANJANEYA, D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT RAYAPPA LAYOUT MAIN ROAD, PUTTENAHALLIPALYA, T.P. WAGATH, 7TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078. 3. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVANNA, D/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HEJJALA VILLAGE AND POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK-562 109. 4. SMT. GIRIYAMMA, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY, D/O SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CARE OF SMT. GANGAMMA, NO.4, SHANIDEVARU TEMPLE, Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26934 RSA No. 793 of 2022 LAGGERE BADAVANE, BENGALURU-560 058. 5. SRI. LAKSHMANA GOWDA, S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.14/1, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA NEW EXTENSION, M.R. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 026. 6. SRI. GOVINDAIAH, S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, SHANIDEVARU TEMPLE, RAJESHWARINAGARA, LAGGERE BADAVANE, BENGALURU-560 058. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR T.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. H. C. RAJANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 2. SRI. R. ANIL, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF HIREHALLI, GANAKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP J.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.07.2019 PASSED ON IA.NO.1 IN R.A.NO.85/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26934 RSA No. 793 of 2022 PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT, AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.04.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.201/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND POSSESSION. 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 for the appellants. 2. R.A.No.85/2011 was dismissed on the ground of delay of 1102 days in filing the regular appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel contend that the delay was explained stating that the father was suffering from paralysis from 2007 to 2010 and also was suffering from other ailments and also produced the documents and could not contact the advocate to file the appeal immediately. The learned counsel contend that though the judgment and decree was passed in 2008, due to these reasons, could not file the appeal in time and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26934 RSA No. 793 of 2022 hence there was a delay of 3 years 7 months. After filing of the appeal, the father also passed away. The First Appellate Court dismissed the application considering the admission of the witness, who was examined before the First Appellate Court regarding delay is concerned, wherein he categorically admitted that Sri Lakshmana Gowda, who is his brother was having knowledge about the judgment as he was coming with his father to the Trial Court and also further admitted that he has not appeared on 17.04.2008, but his brother was aware of the judgment passed in O.S.No.201/2000 and told the fact of judgment to him and also there was no problem to sign the application for certified copy of the judgment. The only reason assigned is that his father was suffering from paralysis from 2007 to 2010. The First Appellate Court having considered the admission on the part of the appellant i.e., Govindaiah, though Exs.P.1 to 4 are marked, comes to the conclusion that when the admission is very clear that he himself and his father were living together and regularly attending the Court, what prevented them from filing the appeal in time has not been explained properly. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26934 RSA No. 793 of 2022 3. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, when there was a delay of 1102 days i.e., 3 years 7 months, the same has not been explained properly and each day delay has to be explained. Apart from that, the admission is clear that they were having knowledge about the judgment and both himself and his brother Lakshmana Gowda used to visit the Court regularly and when the judgment was passed in 2008, the appeal was filed in 2011. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, unless sufficient reasons are assigned for delay, I do not find any ground to set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court. 4. It is important to note that the suit was dismissed and the suit was filed in 2000 seeking the prayer that sale deed dated 16.11.1990 is illegal and liable to be set aside. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. After selling the property in 1990, the suit was filed in 2000 and there was a delay. Having taken note of the said fact that once the sale deed was executed long back in 1990 and the same was challenged after ten years and all of them were majors and hence, I do not find any ground on merit also. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26934 RSA No. 793 of 2022 The delay has not been properly explained and sufficient cause has not been shown. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49