Dismissed

Chennappa v. Smt. Adamma

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023RSA/595/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an application to condone a delay of 1302 days in filing a regular second appeal. The court found the reasons, namely advanced age and lack of knowledge about disposal, insufficient as there was no explanation for the four-year gap between the impugned judgment and the notice of suit.

What did the court decide?

No relief. I.A.No.1/2021 dismissed, leading to dismissal of the regular second appeal.

Chennappa Vs Smt. Adamma — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 595 OF 2021 (INJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHENNAPPA S/O NANJAPPA

¶9

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶10

JAGANNATHA S/O NANJAPPA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶12

CHANDRAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶14

VENKATACHALA S/O THIMMAIAH

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶17

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS RESIDENTS OF SHANAGANAHALLI I.D.HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SMT. ADAMMA W/O LATE SUBBANNA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶22

SMT. SANJEEVAMMA

¶23

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶24

W/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKADALAVATTA I.D. HALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶25

SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O OBANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF GOWDAHATTI KASABA HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶26

ASHWATHAPPA S/O SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHANAGANAHALLI I.D. HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶27

SMT. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA W/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHOWLURU, HINDUPURA TALUK,

¶28

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 515 201

¶29

SMT. NAGALAKSHMAMMA W/O NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶30

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O K.P.THIMMARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶31

RESPONDENTS NO.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF KAMASANAHALLI KODIGENAHALLI HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132

¶32

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶33

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MUDIGERE, HOSURU HOBLI GOWRIBIDANURU TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 210.

¶34

ASHWATHAPPA S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDENT OF SHANAGANAHALLI I.D.HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 132.

¶35

NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHOWLURU HINDUPURA TALUK ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 515 201.

¶36

SREERAMAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED 69 YEARS RESIDENT OF CHIKKADALAVATTA I.D. HALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132

¶37

(SINCE DEAD VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023 BRINGING LRS TO R10 IS EXEMPTED)

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI T. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7; R8 AND R9 ARE SERVED)

¶40

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.05.2016 PASSED IN R.A.NO.5036/2015 ( OLD RA NO.157/2006) ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶43

MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.09.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.29/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI.

¶44

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent on I.A.No.1/2021 which is filed to condone the delay of 1302 days in filing the appeal. In support of this application, an affidavit is sworn to that they are sufficiently aged and they were not in a position to attend the Court in all dates of hearing and the advocate who is on record also not informed about the disposal of the appeal and hence, they were not aware of the same and only when respondent Nos.3 and 8 came to the village stating that they are going to take the possession of the property in the month of March 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the Courts were closed and thereafter, filed an appeal immediately. Hence, the delay has to be

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶49

condoned. The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that he has a good case and delay has to be condoned and the Court has to take lenient view while condoning the delay.

¶50

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed the objection statement contending that the appellants are representing through the counsel and appeal was disposed of on 31.05.2016 and this appeal is filed after four years and excluding the limitation period of COVID-19 also, still there are 1302 days of delay in filing the appeal and both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court allowed the suit and confirmed the order of the Trial Court and hence, in both the Courts, the appellants were unsuccessful and there are no reasons to condone the delay.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶52

the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record it is not in dispute that the appeal was disposed of on 31.05.2016 and the reasons assigned in the

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶54

application that they are sufficiently aged and they were not aware of the disposal of the case and only when the respondent Nos.3 and 8 came to the village, the appellants comes to know about the same. The counsel for the appellants given the reason for the delay is that the appellants are sufficiently aged and nothing is stated with regard to what prevented them from in contacting their advocate from 2016 to 2020 i.e., for a period of four years and no explanation with regard to the delay from 2016 to 2020. No doubt, the appellants in the affidavit stated that due to COVID-19, they could not file the appeal within the time but the COVID-19 starts only after March 2020 and in between 2016 to 2020, the appeal has not been filed and there is no explanation to that effect and only reason assigned that they were sufficiently aged. When such reasoning is given in the affidavit, each day delay has to be explained to condone the delay and the same has not been done. The reasons assigned in the application to condone delay of 1302 days in filing the appeal is not satisfactory. The counsel for the respondent also brought

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:32511 RSA No. 595 of 2021

¶56

to notice of this Court that the appeal was disposed of on 31.05.2016 and from 2016 to 2020, there is no explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and the statement of objection also that there is also a concurrent finding by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Though the counsel for the appellants contend that he has got merit in the case, having considered the delay of 1302 days in filing the appeal and the suit is also for the relief of permanent injunction and hence, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 1302 days when the reasons assigned in the application is not satisfactory in explaining

¶57

the each day delay to condone the same. Hence, I.A.No.1/2021 is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Chennappa v. Smt. Adamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennappa v. Smt. Adamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Pillamma Vs Smt Muniyamma

Sri Nagabushan Vs Chikkadodaiah

Smt.M.Lalitha Vs Smt.Shashikala

Mr. Jaswanth Reddy v. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Thimmamma Vs Smt. Gangalakshmamma

Thyagaraja Vs Mohammed Rafiq