- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. THARA SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA SHERIGARA R/AT AROOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 576 269 2. SHASHIKALA G SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O NARAYANA SHERIGARA 3. PUSHPA G SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O KRISHNA SHERIGARA RETD. POST MASTER CHANTAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN-576 213 4. VIJAYA G SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI 5. BHARATH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021 6. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI 7. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI RESPONDENTS NO.2, 4 TO 7 ALL ARE RESIDING AT RATHNA NILAYA AGRAHARA, CHANTAR VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA POST - 576 213 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: MEERA R SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O RAJU SHERIGARA R/AT AGRAHARA OF CHANTHAR VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA POST - 576 213 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2018 PASSED IN RA.No.129/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2017 PASSED IN OS No.107/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri. Vyasa Rao K.S., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. I.A.No.1/2020 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 550 days in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of the second appellant Smt. Shashikala G. Sherigarthi. 3. She has stated in the affidavit that she was in charge of the appeal and she knew the facts and circumstances of the case and she was suffering from ill- health after the Judgment came to be passed in R.A. No.129/1997 and as such delay is not intentional and sought for condoning the delay. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021 4. In support of her contentions in the affidavit, Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Devadas Kamath dated 20.06.2020 is filed wherein it is stated that the deponent was suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes and joint pain. 5. Pertinently, the Medical Certificate does not contain the period of suffering and whether the defendant was precluded from moving out in furnishing the instructions to the advocate for preferring the appeal. Medical certificate is also silent as to the bed rest. 6. There are as many as seven appellants who are defendants No.2 to 8 in the court below. Among them 7th appellant and 5th appellant are the male members who were hale and healthy. Except stating that the second appellant was in charge of filing the appeal, no other material particulars are found so as to condone the huge delay of 550 days in preferring this second appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021 7. Even on merits, this Court noted that the suit is filed for partition in respect of the properties left behind by father and mother. 8. Trial Court decreed the suit only with regard to the share of the father, taking note of the fact that mother of the parties was still alive. 9. However, when the appeal was pending before the First Appellate Court, mother also passed away and present appellants opposed the suit on the ground that mother had executed a Will in favour of one of the appellants. 10. First Appellate Court negated the said contention after recording the evidence and held that the will is not proved and granted the share as per natural succession. 11. Thus, since only shares have been declared in the decree of the Trial Court, which was modified taking note of the death of the mother in the First Appellate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021 Court, this Court does not find any good reasons to condone the huge delay of 550 days in filing the appeal. Moreover, as a natural sharers, these appellants have also been granted share in the suit property. 12. Accordingly, following order: ORDER I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58