- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6641 RSA No. 1026/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1026/2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOPAMMA W/O CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE DEVANAGONDI POST BANGALORE-560067 2. SMT SAROJAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.191/A DEVANAGONDI VILLAGE VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE-560067 3. SMT RAJAMMA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT VAPACHAHALLI VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563103 4. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT BELTHUR VILLAGE BELTHUR POST HOSUR TALUK KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT-635109 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI GOPALA H M.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6641 RSA No. 1026/2024 AND: 1. SRI. NAGANNA S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT DEVANAGODNI VILLAGE AND POST VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE-560067 2. 2.A SRI KARIAYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT NAGARATHNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WIFE OF LATE KARIYAPPA R/AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE AND POST NEAR PAVITHRA STORES VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE-560067 2B. SMT RAMAMANI D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE AND POST NEAR PAVITHRA STORES VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE-560067 2C. SRI THIMMARAJU S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE AND POST NEAR PAVITHRA STORES VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE-560067 2D. KUM RAMYA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE AND POST NEAR PAVITHRA STORES VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE 560067 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6641 RSA No. 1026/2024 2E. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT DEVANAGUNDI VILLAGE AND POST NEAR PAVITHRA STORES VIA KADUGODI BANGALORE-560067 3. SRI T MUNIRAJU S/O LATE THIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.141, MANJUNATHA NILAYA GANGASHYAMANNA POLICE STREET A.NARAYANAPURA BANGALORE-560016 4. SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT MYLANDAHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEHALLI POST MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N BYREGOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1,R2(A TO E; R3-SERVED; SRI SHASHIKUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., PRAYING TO MODIFY JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.07.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.281/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.11.2019 PASSED IN OS NO.929/2008 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6641 RSA No. 1026/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT There is delay of 270 days in filing appeal. 2. I.A.no.1/2024 is filed for its condonation. 3. Sri Chandrashekar.M, learned counsel for appellants submits that impugned judgment passed by first appellate Court was on 03.07.2023. After obtaining certified copy, it was found that, there were some errors and therefore, an application under Section 152 of CPC was filed for correction on 02.08.2023 and disposed of on 04.11.2023. Thereafter, fresh certified copy was applied. Thereafter, appellant no.1 was keeping ill-health due to backache and advised bed rest and thereafter, appeal was filed on 27.06.2024. It is submitted that reasons for delay were bona-fide and beyond control of appellants and therefore, seeks for allowing same. 4. On other hand, counsel respondents opposed application by contending that explanation offered was not reasonable, nor acceptable. It was submitted that appeal is by four persons. Even if, one of them were unwell and not able to take steps for filing of appeal in time, nothing prevented other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6641 RSA No. 1026/2024 appellants from pursuing the cause. Thus, explanation offered was not acceptable and sought for rejection. 5. Heard learned counsel, perused application and affidavit filed in support of application. 6. It is seen that impugned judgment was passed on 03.07.2023. Appeal is filed on 27.06.2024. Though there is some explanation about an application having been filed for correction, said application was disposed of on 04.11.2023. Only explanation for period from 04.11.2023 till 27.07.2024 is about deponent/appellant no.1 suffering from backache. Affidavit is not appended with medical certificate. Besides, as rightly pointed out, said ailment even if so severe to prevent appellant no.1 from pursuing appeal, would not come in way of other appellants pursuing their cause. Thus, for want of proper exploration, I.A.no.1/2024 is rejected. Consequently, appeal and other applications are dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31