- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1747 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMINARASAMMA W/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/O JYOTHINAGAR SIRA TOWN, SIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 2. SMT. THIMMARAJAMMA W/O KENCHANNA D/O HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O JYOTHINAGAR SIRA TOWN, SIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 3. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O GANGANNA D/O HUCHANNA AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT DANDINADIBBA DODDERI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 112. 4. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O SHIVAKUAMR D/O HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O JYOTHINAGAR Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 SIRA TOWN, SIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(a) SRI. NARASAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. SHARDAMMA W/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED: MAJOR R/O SIRA HALKUR ROAD, NEAR PALLESWARA TEMPLE BEHIND DODDAKERE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 1(b) SMT. ANITHA D/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED: MAJOR R/O CHANNANKUNTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 1(c) SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED: MAJOR R/O SIRA TOWN BHOVI COLONY SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 1(d) SRI. MARUTHI S/O LATE NARASAPPA AGED: MAJOR FLOWER MERCHANT R/O LADPURA SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK TUMKAURU DISTRICT-572 137. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 2. 2(a) SRI. LAKSHMIKANTHA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O LAKSHMIKANTHA AGED: MAJOR R/O KUMBARAHATTI KOTE, SIRA, SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 2(b) SMT. KAVITHA D/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA AGED: MAJOR R/O. MALLIKAPURAHATTI SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 2(c) SMT. LATHA D/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA AGED: MAJOR R/O CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 2(d) SRI. MOHAN S/O LATE LAKSHMIKANTHA AGED: MAJOR R/O KUMBARAHATTI KOTE, SIRA SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 3. SMT. RENUKA W/O LATE RAMESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE RAMESH AGED: MAJOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 5. BHARATH S/O LATE RAMESH AGED: MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/O BHOVI COLONY, SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 6. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/O. CHANNANAKUNTE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O. SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 8. 8(a) YASHODAMMA DEAD BY LRS. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA AGED: MAJOR 8(b) NAGANNA S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA AGED: MAJOR 8(c) KRISHNAPPA S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA AGED: MAJOR 8(d) MANJUNATHA S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA AGED: MAJOR - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 8(e) KUMARA S/O CHIKKANNA & YASHODAMMA AGED: MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.8(a) TO 8(e) ARE R/O CHANNANAKUNTE KASABA HOBLI, SIRA TOWN, SIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 9. SRI. SHIVARAM S/O HUCHANNA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O. BALABASAVANAHALLI SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT ALSO AT: R/O. SANTHEPETE SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. 10. 10(a) SMT. MANJULA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. SRI. SRIRANGAPPA S/O RAJANNA AGED: MAJOR 10(b) SRI. ARJUN S/O SRIRANGAPPA AND MAJULA AGED: MAJOR 10(c) SRI. KISHORE S/O SRIRANGAPPA AND MAJULA AGED: MAJOR 10(d) SMT. PREETHI D/O SRIRANGAPPA AND MAJULA AGED: MAJOR - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 ALL ARE R/O. VIDYANAGARA SIRA TOWN ALSO AT: BANNIGARA SIRA TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 137. …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.04.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.49/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND PARTLY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.08.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants on I.A.No.1/2024 and there is a delay of 2,356 days in filing the present appeal. The impugned judgment and decree was passed on 12.04.2016 and the present second appeal is filed in 2025. 2. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to and in paragraph No.4, it is stated that they are rustic villagers and they approached the elders in the village requesting them to advise the respondents/defendants to give - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 their share in the suit schedule properties and they have taken some time stating that they will consider their request to give their share in the suit schedule properties and inspite of said assurance being given, they did not come forward to give the share and they are very ignorant of law of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal and they have not approached the lawyer to file an appeal in anticipation of the settlement among themselves and there was no coordination among them and on the guise of settlement, they did not approach the advocate. Admittedly, the Trial Court decreed the suit and the same is reversed in the appeal and the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional or deliberate. 3. Having considered the fact that judgment was passed in the month of April, 2016 and present appeal was filed on 09.12.2024 after lapse of 9 years and reason assigned is that they have approached the elders and they have stated that they are going to settle the issue and the fact that they filed the suit before the Trial Court claiming partition and the same was granted is not in dispute and subsequently, the same is modified. The very theory of promise to settle the issue cannot - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 be believed and apart from that, except stating that they have approached the elders in the village, not stated any other reason and it is not the case of the appellants that they are not having any knowledge about the judgment passed in 2016 and only reason assigned is that they have approached the elders and they assured that will settle the matter. 4. 4. Having considered the inordinate delay in filing the second appeal, I do not find any ground to condone the delay and the Apex Court in SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS., VS. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1969 categorically held that no litigant should be permitted to be lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the Courts to misuse the process of law. The Apex Court also categorically held in paragraph Nos.140 to 142 that merits of the case cannot be decided, unless the Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned in the delay application for condonation of delay and in the absence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay and each day’s delay is explained, question of condoning the delay and considering the appeal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47586 RSA No. 1747 of 2024 does not arise. Hence, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 2,356 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected. Consequently, the regular second appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11