- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.181 OF 2024 (SP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RANGAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT. GANGANARASAMMA W/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O TAVAREKERE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH-562130 2. SMT. THULASAMMA W/O THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O AT MACHENAHALLI SONDEKOPPA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562123 3. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O NARAYANAPPA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O AT CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU-560018 4. SMT. PADMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O AT BYANAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562123 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHEKARAPPA B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT MUNEERAMMA W/O LATE THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/O AT TAVAREKERE PIPE LINE ROAD TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH-562130 2. L R RAJU @ L R RAJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA @ RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST R/O AT LAKKUPPE TAVAREKERE, PIPE LINE ROAD TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH-562130 …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.07.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.25/2019 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MAGADI 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 appeal is filed against the order of dismissal dated 19.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.I by the First Appellate Court 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 3. The Trial Court granted the relief of specific performance against the defendants and directed to execute the sale deed and the said judgment was challenged before the First Appellate Court after lapse of 1458 days. In order to explain the delay, appellant No.1 herein examined as DW1 before the First Appellate Court. Having perused the affidavit, it discloses that the only - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 allegation made is against her brother who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in the case on hand that no written statement was filed and only defendant No.1(e) has filed the written statement before the Trial Court. Defendant No.1(e) categorically admitted with regard to the execution of sale agreement by himself and his father in the cross-examination. The Trial Court considering the admission, granted the relief of specific performance. The appellant No.1 when she was examined on delay in filing the first appeal, she categorically admits that her father and brother had executed a sale agreement and during the course of cross-examination before the First Appellate Court, she categorically admitted that there was no difficulty to file written statement and give evidence before the Trial Court. Apart from that she categorically admits that herself and her sisters and also the brother have filed the first appeal and the same is not the stray admission. She also categorically deposed before the Court with regard to the preparation of affidavit and giving the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 evidence at the instance of her brother. When such admission was given, the same was taken note of by the First Appellate Court while rejecting the IA when there was a delay of 1458 days in filing the appeal. The fraud is alleged against defendant No.2(e), who is the younger brother and he was also the brother of defendant No.2. 4. The First Appellate Court extracted the admission in paragraph 15 that she has studied upto second standard, she knows the reading and writing of Kannada. Further, she has categorically admitted the execution of agreement of sale by her father and also the brother and also engaged a lawyer to represent them in the original suit. Her further admission was that they have not executed any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 and further admitted that this appeal is filed at the instance of her brother and she categorically admitted that there are no problems for them to attend the Court within the period of 4 years and further admitted that except the allegation made against defendant No.2, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 there are no valid reasons for the appellants to file the first appeal. The First Appellate Court in detail discussed the material on record and having taken note of admission on the part of DW1 before the First Appellate Court wherein she categorically admitted that along with the brother and sisters, the said appeal is filed and also given evidence at the instance of the brother. The very allegation against the brother is nothing but an ingenious method is adopted by the appellant only to get condone the delay of 4 years in filing the first appeal. There is also a clear admission on the part of the appellant that the distance between the Court and her house is only about 20 kilometres. When such admissions are given, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantive question of law since there is an inordinate delay of 1458 days in filing the first appeal before the First Appellate Court. Hence, the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of inordinate delay of 1458 days when the same was not explained properly since each day - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45820 RSA No. 181 of 2024 delay ought to have been explained by the appellant satisfactorily and the same is not done. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A. if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN