- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34842 RSA No. 929 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.929 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS D/O B M SRINIVASA SETTY R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE BUDIKOTE POST BANGARPET TALUK – 563 114 2. SMT RATHNAMMA @ MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O CHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O B M SRINIVASA SETTY R/AT YACHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE BUDIKOTE POST BANGARPET TALUK - 563114 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI K.H.THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JYOTHI W/O LATE SRI B S NARAYANA SWAMY @ NAGARAJ SETTY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SINCE DEAD LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE RESPONDENT No.1 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34842 RSA No. 929 of 2022 2. KUM ASHWINI D/O LATE SRI B S NARAYANA SWAMY @ NAGARAJ SETTY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 3. SHILPA D/O LATE SRI B S NARAYANA SWAMY @ NAGARAJ SETTY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. BINDU W/O LATE SRI B S NARAYANA SWAMY @ NAGARAJ SETTY AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KODIYALAM VILLAGE BEGUR POST, HOSUR TALUK TAMIL NADU -635 103 5. A G KRISHNAIAH SETTY S/O GOVINDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 6. SMT RAJITAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS W/O SRI A G KRISHNA SETTY BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BUDIKOTE POST BANGARPET TALUK - 563114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.LAKSHMAN FOR SRI D.RAGHU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3 AND R4; SRI K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6; VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2025, R2 TO R4 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED R1) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34842 RSA No. 929 of 2022 DATED 16.10.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.50/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT AT KGF, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.03.2011 PASSED IN O.S.No.70/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., KGF. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri K.H. Thimmaiah, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri D.Raghu Prakash Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri K. Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. I.A.No.1/2022 is filed to condone the huge delay of 2729 days in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit. 3. Reasons assigned in the affidavit for condonation of the delay in para Nos.8 and 9 are culled out hereunder for ready reference: “8. I submit that, during the last week of April 2022 we have approached the Advocate in KGF in order to seek legal advice with regard to filing of final decree in respect of the properties in O.S.No.70/2003 and I was advised to furnish the judgment and decree passed in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34842 RSA No. 929 of 2022 O.S.No.70/2003 and the judgment and decree passed in RA No.50/2011 dated 16-12-2012 wherein on going through the judgment and decree I was informed by the Advocate that the suit has not been decree for entire suit schedule properties and I was also informed the properties stood in the name of Subadramma in respect of those properties the prayer has been rejected by the First Appellate Court. 9. I submit that, the property involved in Sy.No.104, Sy.No.39 and Sy.No.27/1 are larger extent which have been excluded in the partition on the ground that properties are standing in the name of Subadramma who is none other than our sister.” 4. The reasons assigned are as vague as anything and not sufficient to condone the huge delay of 2729 days. More so, when already against the very same judgment, an appeal is pending in RSA No.227/2013 wherein the present appellants are also parties. 5. Further, even on merits of the case, the appeal is not maintainable in view fact that the present appellants did not chose to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.70/2003 before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.50/2011 either by filing Cross objection or by filing a separate appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34842 RSA No. 929 of 2022 6. In other words, when there is no adjudication of the claim of the appellants before the First Appellate Court in any manner in view of the fact that there was no cross appeal or cross objection, it should be presumed that the present appellants were satisfied with the decree of the First Appellate Court. 7. Under such circumstances, appeal under Section 100 CPC by a party who did not challenge the decree passed by the trial Court before First Appellate Court is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, on that score also the appeal needs to be dismissed. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) I.A.No.1/2022 is dismissed. (ii) Consequently appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR