- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2019 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. NEELAMMA W/O LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 2. HUCHAPPA J P S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. GANESHAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. VIVEKAPPA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. DAYANANDA S/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 6. SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 8. KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE PUTTAPPA Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 9. MALATHI D/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 10. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF KITTADAHALLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 427 SHIVAMOGGA DSITRICT. 11. R. RENUKAMMA D/O LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O JAYANAGARA SHIKARIPURA TOWN - 577 427 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P.N HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHARMAKKA W/O ADIVEPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SHEKARAPPA S/O ADIVEPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF KITTADAHALLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 427 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 R1-APPEAL DISMISSED BY ORDER DATED 15.07.2024) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.1 IN RA.NO.46/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA REJECTING THE IA AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.01.2014 PASSED IN OS.NO.98/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE SHIKARIPURA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSOIN, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs. 2. J.Puttappa - plaintiff No.1, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1(a) and father of plaintiff No.1(b) to 1(k) has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Puttappa is the owner in possession of land measuring 5 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.31 situated at Kavaspura village, Shikaripura taluk (for brevity "suit schedule property"). Puttappa and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 Adiveppa - the husband of defendant No.1 are the sons of Bheemappa. In the year 1939, Puttappa and Adiveppa partitioned their ancestral joint family properties and in the said partition, the suit schedule property and Sy.No.30 measuring 4 acres 12 guntas allotted to the share of Puttappa. Thereafter, the revenue records were mutated in the name of Puttappa and he was in continuous possession of the same. However, Adiveppa filed an application seeking mutation of his name in respect of Sy.No.30 before the Tahsildar, Shikaripura and the said Tahsildar passed an order mutating the name of Adiveppa's wife - defendant No.1. 4. Thereafter, on appeal preferred by Puttappa, the aforesaid order passed by the Tahsildar was set aside and thus, Puttappa had become the absolute owner of both Sy.Nos.30 and 31 of Kavaspura village. The defendants having no manner of right whatsoever over the suit property, on 25-05-2003 tried to interfere with the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 possession of the plaintiffs' over the suit property. Hence, they preferred the suit for permanent injunction. 5. On service of summons, defendants appeared and filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and contending that themselves and Puttappa have not divided their ancestral joint family properties and they were in joint possession of the suit property. They further contended that during the life time of Bheemappa, he was managing the joint family affairs, but after his death Puttappa, being the eldest son was managing the joint family affairs and the revenue records were mutated in his name based on inheritance. They further contended that they have filed the suit in O.S.No.74/2003 seeking partition even including the suit schedule property and as such, without partition Puttappa cannot acquire the absolute right over the suit schedule property, being the joint family property. Accordingly, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 6. The Trial Court, after considering the rival pleadings, framed the relevant issues and after examining the evidence in detail, dismissed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of Puttappa preferred an appeal along with an I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay of 1017 days in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court by its order dated 31.01.2019 has dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs and accordingly, the appeal was also dismissed as barred by time. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 8. I have heard Sri.P.N.Harish, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. The appeal is abated as against respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 though served, remained unrepresented. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs is that, the First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing IA.No.1 filed by the plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Limitation Act though the plaintiffs have - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 given a satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in filing the regular appeal. He further contended that, the materials on record would indicate that some of the plaintiffs are residents of other places and notices of FDP proceedings were not served and even there are discrepancies in the signatures of plaintiff No.1(c) - Ganeshappa, son of Puttappa. Under such circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought to have taken a liberal approach more particularly when the right of appeal would be curtailed on technicalities in denying the opportunity and more so in view of discrepancies as referred to above. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court and the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court. 11. As could be gathered from records, the suit in O.S.No.74/2003 filed by the legal heirs of Adiveppa - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49479 RSA No. 576 of 2019 against Puttappa seeking partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties was decreed, which was confirmed by order dated 28.02.2025 in R.A.No.47/2017, on remand by the order of this Court in RSA.No.577/2019. Thus, it is clear that there was no partition as alleged by the legal heirs of Puttappa and the suit schedule properties were partitioned vide decree passed in O.S.No.74/2003, as such, there is no question of any interference by the legal heirs of Adiveppa with the possession of suit schedule properties as alleged by legal heirs of Puttappa. Hence, the question of granting any injunction does not arise. In that view of the matter, I find no question of law much less the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28