Dismissed¶53

Sri Nagaiah v. B M Nissar Ahamed

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025RSA/1245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh J., 28.10.2025), RSA No.1245 of 2025 (DEC/POS): condonation of 748-day delay in filing second appeal refused where appellant was represented by advocate in first appeal R.A.No.22/2021 and gained knowledge only via 2025 execution petition notice; adverse possession plea rejected where title asserted through Panchayath hakku patra; appeal dismissed, confirming decree in O.S.No.257/2010 dated 20.02.2021.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the appellant learnt of the First Appellate Court's judgment only upon receipt of notice in the execution petition cannot be accepted, since he was represented through an advocate in R.A.No.22/2021; the appellant has not explained each day's delay, and therefore the 748-day delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. ¶48

Sri Nagaiah Vs B M Nissar Ahamed — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42797 RSA No. 1245 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1245 OF 2025 (DEC/POS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NAGAIAH S/O BILIGIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A BANKAHALLI VILLAGE HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD-571301

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI BHUVAN K P, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

B M NISSAR AHAMED S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶14

B.M. RIYAZ AHAMED S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶15

B.M. SHEIKH FARID S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶16

B.M. ABDUL KHADER S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42797 RSA No. 1245 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶20

B.M. SHEIKH ALI S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶21

NASIR UDDIN S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶22

B.M. MOHINUDDIN S/O LATE N.M. MOHIDDIN PASHA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶23

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶24

PAVITHRA D/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶25

NETHRA D/O LATE BASAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶26

RAJANNA S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶27

SMT. SAROJAMMA W/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶28

SRI. GURUSWAMY S/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42797 RSA No. 1245 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

RATHNAMMA D/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶32

KIRAN S/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶33

SAVITHA D/O LATE CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶34

SRI. KENDAIAH S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶35

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT BANAKAHALLI VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJAAGUD TALUK, NANJANAGUD-571301

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.22/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NANJANGUD AND ETC.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42797 RSA No. 1245 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

Heard on I.A.No.1/2025 wherein the learned counsel for the appellant prayed this Court to condone the delay of 748 days in filing this appeal.

¶44

In support of the application for condonation of the delay, the reason assigned is that respondents have filed the execution petition in the year 2024 and the notice was received by the appellant in the year 2025 and suddenly, the appellant came to know that the respondents have filed the execution petition for enforcing the judgment and decree under the appeal. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional since, the appellant came to know about passing of the judgment and decree under the appeal only recently and immediately, he applied for the certified copy and obtained the records and filed the present appeal.

¶45

Having perused the records, it discloses that the judgment and decree was passed by the Trial Court on 20.02.2021 in O.S.No.257/2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was filed in R.A.No.22/2021 wherein also appellants were represented

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42797 RSA No. 1245 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

through an advocate having the knowledge of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court vide order dated 18.04.2023. The present appeal is filed on 04.08.2025. The very contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the appellant is not having the knowledge about the judgment of the First Appellate Court and he came to know about the same in 2025 only i.e., after the receipt of notice in the execution petition. The said contention cannot be accepted when he was representing through an advocate and he himself has filed an appeal along with others before the First Appellate Court. It shows that the appellant had engaged the counsel and challenged the earlier judgment and decree and he kept quiet for sometime, thus, there was a delay of 748 days in filing the appeal. But the contention that he was not aware of the same cannot be accepted since, the appellant has not explained each day delay properly in filing this appeal.

¶49

Having considered the matter on merits, it discloses

¶50

that before the Trial Court, pleaded about the adverse possession and at the same time claims that they are having a

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42797 RSA No. 1245 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

title over the property since the Panchayath has given hakku patra in their favour. Once the appellant did not accept the ownership of the respondent/plaintiff and hostile to the knowledge that they are in possession, the question of adverse possession cannot be considered. The Trial Court also taken note of the contention of the appellant with regard to the adverse possession and in detail discussed in paragraph 28. Hence, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 748 days in filing this appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶54

In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.As. if any,

¶55

do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed.

¶56

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶57

Sri Nagaiah v. B M Nissar Ahamed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaiah v. B M Nissar Ahamed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kusuma Vs Jayashankara

Smt. A.S. Shankaramma, Vs Smt. Latha

Smt. Leelamma Dead by Lrs Smt Padma Vs Smt. Premakumari

Brahmachari Vs S. Ramamurthy

Shri.K.N.Venkatareddy Vs Kadirappa

Sri Kalamanda P Nanaiah Vs Smt. M R Lolakshi