Partly allowed

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. Smt. Gowramma

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024RSA/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 1478 days in filing a regular second appeal, holding the appellant's explanation regarding the death of her former advocate as insufficient. Consequently, the appeal failed for being barred by limitation.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking condonation of delay (I.A.No.1/2024) was dismissed; the second appeal consequently failed.

Smt. Jayalakshmamma Vs Smt. Gowramma — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39678 RSA No. 269 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. CHENNAIAH, D/O. LATE VENKATAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURIDODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. INDU SHEKAR B.T., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. SUMALATHA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. MANGALAMMA D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:39678 RSA No. 269 of 2024

¶19

SRI. MURTHY, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.

¶20

SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.

¶21

SMT. LAKSHMI, D/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶22

SRI. NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKAHOMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶23

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDENTS OF KAKARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶24

VENKATAGIRIYAPPA

¶25

S/O LATE PUTTAIAH.

¶26

SINCE DEAD, LEGAL HEIRS WERE ALREADY ON RECORD.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.11.2017. PASSED IN RA NO. 15/15 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:39678 RSA No. 269 of 2024

¶31

01.12.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.381/2011 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANAGARA.

¶32

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

This appeal is preferred by defendant No.6 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2017 passed in R.A.No.15/15 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, allowing the

¶36

appeal in part and modifying the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2014 in O.S.No.381/2011 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

¶37

Since there is delay of 1478 days in preferring appeal the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2024 seeking to condone the delay.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39678 RSA No. 269 of 2024

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has stated the reasons for delay in filing the appeal, that she had entrusted the matter to one Sri Venkatesh, Advocate to secure the certified copies and to file the appeal before this Court. After four years, she came to know that the said Advocate is no more.

¶40

Taking into consideration the reasons stated at paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the application, the explanation offered by the appellant cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause to condone the delay of nearly five years in preferring the appeal. Accordingly I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed. Consequently the appeal

¶41

fails .

¶42

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jayalakshmamma v. Smt. Gowramma

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

Chowdappa Vs Superintendent Engineer

Neelamma Vs Superintendent Engineer

Smt. Prema W/O Shivarudrappa Vs Smt H.L. Gowramma

Mudasir Pasha Vs Smt B Jayamma

Smt K H Prabhavathi Vs Smt. Kumari Bayi

Smt K H Prabhavathi Vs Smt Kumari Bayi