- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 926 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SUSHEELA W/O MADA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMAPATNA SOMAHAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI HUNASURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105 2. SMT BASAVAMANI W/O DEVARAJ NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. SRI SANNASWAMY NAIKA S/O PUTTASWAMY NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 4. SRI MAHADEVA P S/O PUTTASWAMY NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 5. SMT SOWBHAGYA W/O NARASA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 6. SRI SHIVAMURTHY S/O SIDDA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 7. SMT SUDHA W/O RAMA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMA PATTANA KASABA HOBLI HUNASURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105 8. SMT REKHA W/O SURESHA NAYAKA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 6 AND 8 ARE R/AT MADHUVANAHALLI ROAD K R NAGAR TOWN MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESH SINCE DEAD BY LRS YASHODHA W/O LATE VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 3. KUMARADAS S/O LATE VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 4. KAVITHA D/O LATE VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 5. KARIGOWDA S/O DASASETTY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KATNALU VILLAGE HEBBALU HOBLI, K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602 6. SWAMY NAIKA S/O. AJJANAIKA MAJOR 7. SMT. MADAMMA W/O. SANNASWAMYNAIKA MAJOR RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT MADHUVANAHALLI HEBBALU HOBLI K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 602 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESHA P., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 (ABSENT) SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R7(ABSENT) R6 - SERVED) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.09.2011 PASSED IN RA.No.6/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.11.2007 PASSED IN OS.No.309/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) K.R.NAGAR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. K.M. Sanath Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. None appears for the respondents. 3. Heard on I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2021. 4. I.A. No.1/2021 is filed seeking coordination of delay of 3079 days in filing the present appeal. 5. I.A.No.2/2021 is filed seeking leave to file the present appeal by appellants No.1, 2, 4 to 8 on the ground - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 that they were not aware of the decree that has been passed against their father and soon after they came to know after they received the necessary notice from the executing Court, they have filed the present appeal seeking the leave of this Court. 6. In the affidavit in support of I.A. No.1/2021, Smt. Susheela being the wife of Mada Nayak has contended that they are the children of late Puttaswamy Naika and Smt. Sakamma, who are defendants No. 1 and 4 before the Trial Court. 7. It is further contented that both of them died after the disposal of the appeal in RA No.6/2008 which was filed by the plaintiff challenging the decree of dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.309/2005. 8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the matter, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and Mada Nayak did not choose to file any second appeal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 even though the appellate court passed the judgment and decree on 03.09.2011. 9. However, a belated appeal came to be filed on 24.11.2021 with an application seeking coordination of delay. 10. It is also contended in the affidavit that delay in filing the present appeal is on account of the fact that neither Puttaswamy Naika nor his wife Smt. Sakamma intimated the result of R.A. No.6/2008. 11. It is further contented that appellants being the legal representatives of Puttaswamy Naika and Smt. Sakamma, who are original defendants No.1 and 4, rights of the appellants are affected and the rectification ordered by the First Appellate Court to the sale deed dated 19.12.1986 would adversely affect the rights of the appellants and thus sought for condonation of delay. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26301 RSA No. 926 of 2021 12. Except stating that appellants were unaware of the proceedings, no other reasons are forthcoming to condone the huge delay of 3079 days in filing the appeal. 13. In other words, the contents of the affidavit are vague and there is no compelling reason for this Court to condone the huge delay of 3079 days in filing the appeal. 14. Further, since this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 3079 days, granting the leave to the appellants to prosecute the appeal would not further survive for consideration. 15. Accordingly I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 are rejected. Consequently appeal is also rejected. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54