- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31117 RSA No. 1018 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2022 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. C B RENUKA PRASAD SON LATE C BASAVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. C R CHAITHANYA KUMAR S/O C B RENUKA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 3. C R TEJAMURTHY S/O C B RENUKA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS APPELLANTS ARE AGRICULTURISTS RESIDING AT BETHURU VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK, DISTRICT PIN CODE - 577 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT C B SHIVAKUMARI DEAD BY HER LEGAL HEIRS B V VEERABASAIAH S/O KARIBASAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31117 RSA No. 1018 of 2022 2. D M AKSHYA KUMAR S/O B M VEERABASAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. D M ANIL KUMAR S/O B M VEERABASAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 4. D M CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O B M VEERABASAIAH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE THE AGRICULTURISTS, RESIDING AT TAVARAGUNDI VILALGE HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DISTIRCT NOW AT BELLARI DISTRICT - 583 213 5. KUMARI C B PREMALEELA D/O OF LATE C BASAVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 6. KUMARI C B BHARATHI D/O OF LATE C BASAVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESOPNDENT NO.5 TO 6 ARE THE AGRICULTURISTS RESIDING AT BETHURU VILLAGE DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SATHISH CHANDRA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6 (ABSENT)) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31117 RSA No. 1018 of 2022 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.06.2019 PASSED IN RA.NO.62/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.07.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.99/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DAVANAGERE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT I.A.No.1/2022 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 307 days in filing the appeal. 2. Heard Sri. Hiremathad Maheshaih Rudrayya, learned counsel for the appellants on I.A.No.1/2022. 3. None appears for the respondents. 4. In the affidavit in support of the application, it has been stated that the First Appellate Court has passed the judgment on 20.06.2019. Thereafter, the appellants contacted their advocate to apply for certified copy of the said judgment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31117 RSA No. 1018 of 2022 Since their advocate was not well, certified copy was applied only in the month of January, 2020. Thereafter, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, they could not reach Bengaluru and get the appeal filed immediately. 5. The affidavit contains that in 3rd week of March, 2022 there was a national lockdown, which is incorrect, perhaps it is a typing mistake and it should have been 3rd week of March, 2020. 6. Be that what it may, the office has not taken into consideration the period of delay occurred during COVID-19 pandemic period and national lockdown. The appeal admittedly came to be filed on 06.07.2022. However, lockdown was lifted in the month of October, 2020 itself. 7. What are the sufficient reasons for huge delay even after lifting the lockdown is not explained. The appellants are resident of Davangare Taluk and mass transport like buses and trains got resumed in the year 2021. There is a connectivity of mass transportation every half an hour between Davanagere and Bengaluru. Therefore, the reasons assigned in the affidavit, is per-se not acceptable in condoning the huge delay. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31117 RSA No. 1018 of 2022 8. Moreover, the appellants are the defendants, who resisted the suit for partition on the ground that Basavalingaiah had executed a Will in their favour. Both the Courts upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, have concurrently recorded a categorical finding that the said Will propounded by the appellants suffers from legal infirmities and is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.. Therefore, the suit came to be decreed, granting 1/4th share in the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. 9. Thus, on merits also no proper grounds are made out to interfere with the factual finding recorded by both the Courts. 10. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the huge delay of 307 days in filing the appeal cannot be condoned as rights of the parties have been settled long ago. 11. Accordingly, the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31117 RSA No. 1018 of 2022 ORDER i) The application i.e., I.A.No.1/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 307 days in filing the appeal is rejected. ii) Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27