- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1273 OF 2023 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGESH S L S/O LATE S.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 825, KOBRIPETE, 1ST CROSS, BEHIND ADVOCATE SHIVALINGAPPA'S HOUSE, HOSADURGA CHITRADURGA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.2034/1, NEAR DAIRY FRESH 10TH CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANAGAGERE- 04 …APPELLANT (BY SRI MANJUNATHA G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE SHANKARIRAMASHETTY W/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS SRI. SATHYAKUMAR, S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, HOSADURGA, SINCE DEAD BY HER LR’s Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 1a MANJULA S AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE SATYA KUMAR S VAJRA BUILDING, VIJAYA NAGARA EXT. HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DIST. 2. S.R. BHEEMARAYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANKARI RAMA SHEETY, R/O SRB STORES, MAIN ROAD, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DIST. 3. SRI. S.B. THIMMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O S.R. BHEEMARAYA SHETTY, PROP. S.R.B. STORES, SRI RAGHAVENDRA BOOK STORES, H.H. ROAD, HOSAGURGA TOWN. 4. SRI. DWARAKANATH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, HUSBAND OF LATE UMA D/O LATE S.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHETTY, RESIDING AT RAJAHAMSANILAYA, OPP :POST OFFICE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLY- 572214 5. SRI. L .RAMESH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE S.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHETTY, RESIDING AT C/O BHUMIKA BOOKS AND GENERAL STORES, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND HOSADURGA 6. SMT. S.L. MEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA D/O LATE S.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANA SHETTY, RESIDING AT SUHAS STORES, MAIN ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 BUKKAPATHNA, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 115 7. SMT. S. GEETHA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O SURESH, D/O LATE S.R.LAKHSHMINARAYANA SHETTY, RESIDING AT DR.NO.1648/3, ASHIRVAD, 3RD CROSS, SIDDAVEERAPPA LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE 8. SMT. L. ADILAKSHAMAMMA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, W/O LATE S.R. LASKHMINARAYANA SHETTY, SINCE DEAD REPT BY HER LRS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(a); SRI GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R3, R4, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R8 IS DECEASED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 8.09.2021 PASSED IN RA NO.33/2018 ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.17/2016 (OLD NO.9/2012) ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOSADURGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Amended cause title filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2023 which is filed seeking condonation of delay of 411 days in filing the present appeal excluding the saving of limitation during COVID-19 period. 3. In the affidavit it has been mentioned that mother of the original appellant was bedridden and during the COVID-19 period he had to attend to her and therefore he could not go out of the house and instruct the counsel to file the appeal. 4. The second reason on which the huge delay of 411 days is sought to be condoned is that there were talks of settlement and some amount of money was offered to the appellant, but the respondents failed to fulfill the same. 5. Pertinently, no documents are placed on record to substantiate the ill health of the mother of the appellant which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 prevented him from approaching the Court for a period of 411 days. 6. Time spent during COVID period is excluded by the office while computing the huge delay of 411 days. 7. If the appellant could participate in the final decree proceedings for the purpose of getting his legitimate share in terms of money, it should not lie in the mouth of the appellant that he was precluded from contacting the advocate to file the present appeal which is a challenge to the sharing pattern. 8. Further, the contesting respondents would deny the contents of the affidavit in toto. 9. In the interregnum, the final decree proceedings initiated pursuant to the preliminary decree passed by the trial Court and after the present appellant appeared before the final decree proceedings and objections were taken into consideration, final decree is also drawn by the trial Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 10. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served even if the delay is condoned and appeal is taken up on merits. 11. All that this Court can sympathize with the appellant is to permit the appellant to challenge the final decree subject to objections of the respondents in such an appeal. 12. With that liberty, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not sufficient enough to condone the huge delay of 411 days in filing the appeal. 13. Hence, following: ORDER (i) IA No.1 of 2023 is rejected. (ii) Consequently, appeal is also dismissed. (iii) It is made clear that dismissal of the present appeal shall not act as hindrance if the appellant chooses to file necessary appeal challenging the final decree. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34138 RSA No. 1273 of 2023 (iv) It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, nor it should be construed that if an appeal is filed, respondents have given their consent for entertaining the appeal. In other words, the respondents are at liberty to canvass all such favourable points in the intended appeal. (v) In view of the dismissal of the present appeal, other pending IAs are consigned to the record. No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59