- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13570 RFA No. 1601 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1601 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. VASANTHA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O JAYASHEELAN D/O LATE V.R. NATARAJA MUDALIAR R/AT NO.12 G, 4TH STREET, JOGUPALYAM, ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 076 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAYEEM PASHA S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI A AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O S.ASHOK, D/O LATE V.R. NATARAJA MUDALIAR R/AT GURUSRI NIVAS, NO.24 3RD CROSS, CAUVERI LAYOUT SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD JALAHALLI WEST BANGALORE - 560 015 …RESPONDENT THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.01.2010 PASSED IN O.S NO.263/2006 ON THE FILE OF XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13570 RFA No. 1601 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT I.A No.1/2024 is filed for condonation of delay of 4380 days in filing the appeal. 2(i). It is stated by the appellant in the affidavit accompanying the application that the respondent had filed a suit in O.S No.263/2006 before the Court of the XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, for partition and separate possession of her half share in the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the appellant herein/defendant was placed ex-parte and a judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 was passed. The respondent initiated final decree proceedings in F.D.P. No.75/2010 for partition by metes and bounds and to place her in possession of her half share in the suit schedule property. Even in the said F.D.P, the appellant herein was placed ex parte. The respondent then filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') on 13.09.2017 to appoint a Court Commissioner to effect partition, which was allowed and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13570 RFA No. 1601 of 2024 Court Commissioner submitted his report on 13.09.2017 stating that the division of the property is not practicable. The Court of VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in terms of an Order dated 22.11.2018, allowed the final decree proceedings and granted liberty to the respondent herein to put the suit schedule property for sale by public auction and to apportion the sale proceeds between the appellant herein and the respondent herein proportionately. (ii) The appellant claimed that the respondent filed Execution proceedings in Ex. No.320/2020 before the VI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, where the appellant entered appearance and filed objections and also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC seeking to stay the execution proceedings which was rejected in terms of an order dated 19.09.2023. (iii) Thereafter, an auction was conducted and the respondent and one Mr. J. Srinivasan had participated in the auction and they being the highest bidders, the Court directed them to deposit 25% of the sale consideration. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13570 RFA No. 1601 of 2024 3. The appellant contends that she is a handicapped woman and is immobilized and therefore, she was not in a position to engage an Advocate to take legal recourse to challenge the ex parte judgment and decree passed in the final decree proceedings. She, however, contended that she had preferred a miscellaneous case in Misc. No.1605/2022 before the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.263/2006, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.01.2024. She contends that due to age related ailments, she could not contact her Advocate and seek his advice as to what steps should be taken to challenge the ex parte judgment and decree. With these contentions, it is submitted that the appeal could not be filed in time. 4. The suit in O.S. No.263/2006 was decreed ex parte on 08.01.2010. Thereafter, the respondent initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.75/2010, in which notice was issued to the appellant and she was placed ex parte in the said proceedings also. Thereafter, an execution petition in Ex. No.320/2020 was filed by the respondent to execute the final - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13570 RFA No. 1601 of 2024 decree to bring the property for sale. The appellant entered appearance in the said case and filed an application under Order XXI Rule 26 of the CPC to stay the execution proceedings, which was rejected on 19.09.2023. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Case in Misc. No.1605/2022 to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.263/2006 which was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.01.2024. Therefore, it is not the case of the appellant that she did not know about the filing of the suit and the consequent decree as well as the other proceedings initiated by the respondent based on the ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 passed in O.S. No.263/2006. Hence, the delay of 4380 days in filing this appeal is not satisfactorily explained by the appellant. Even on merits, the suit schedule property was owned and possessed by the mother of the appellant and the respondent and after her death, both the appellant and the respondent would be entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule property and the Trial Court has precisely granted a decree declaring that the respondent herein is entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule property. Hence, there is no need to upset the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2010 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13570 RFA No. 1601 of 2024 passed by the Court of XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S No.263/2006. In view of the fact that the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 4380 days in filing the appeal, the application in I.A. No.1/2024 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. In view of disposal of this appeal, I.A. No.2/2024 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17