Sri Veerachari Vs Smt. B. Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sri Veerachari Vs Smt. B. Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

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

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1410 OF 2024 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VEERACHARI, S/O LATE A. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

SHAMACHARI, S/O LATE A. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

…APPELLANTS

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)

SMT. B. RATHNAMMA, W/O B. SANNACHARI, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

SMT. INDIRAMMA, W/O NINGACHARI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

AGRICULTURIST, R/O GEEGALI VILLAGE, HARIHAR TALUK-577230.

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE NAGENDRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

SMT. HEMAVATHI, W/O VIJAYACHARI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O HULIGINAKATTE VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577230.

SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA, W/O VIRUPAKSHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KATHGI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

SRI. YAMUNACHARI, S/O NAGENDRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

KUM. BHAGYA, D/O LATE NAGENDRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577230.

SRI. PALAKSHACHARI. S/O LATE GANESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI. SHANKARACHARI, S/O LATE GANESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

SMT. MEGHACHARI, D/O LATE GANESHACHARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 ARE R/O. GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577230.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 PASSED IN R.A.NO.64/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.04.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.138/2009 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI.

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

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned

counsel for the appellants.

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs

before the Trial Court is that they are the daughters of one late

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

Sri A. Basappa. The mother of the plaintiffs was one Smt.Veeramma. One Sri Nagendrachari and defendant Nos.6 to 8 are the brothers of the plaintiffs. The said Nagendrachari died intestate and defendant No.1 is his wife and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are his children. The mother of the plaintiffs died long back. The father of the plaintiffs Basappa died about 25 years ago leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.6 to 8 and a son Sri Nagendrachari as his legal representatives to succeed to his estate. One of the brothers of the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.1 Nagendrachari died intestate about 8 years back leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 5 as his legal representatives. The said Nagendrachari had an unmarried daughter Kumari Dakshayanamma, who also died about 3-4 years back. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. There was no partition in the joint family. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for 2/6^th share over the suit schedule properties.

The defendants Nos.1, 4 and 6 to 8 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. The defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 remained absent and they were placed exparte. It is contended that the plaintiffs have come

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

up with a false claim and they are not entitled for any share. It is also contended that the family properties were partitioned about 30 to 40 years ago and the parties are living separately. The plaintiffs had directed the defendants to alienate Sy.No.164/3A in favour of A.Parameshwarappa and had received the entire sale consideration amount and had told that they would not claim any share in the suit properties and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved the case, since the defendants though filed the written statement, they did not choose to contest the matter either by cross-examining or leading any defence evidence.

The said order is challenged before the First Appellate Court with a delay of 1,257 days. The First Appellate Court having considered the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and affidavit, taken note of the defendants have not led any evidence before the Trial Court except filing of written statement. The First Appellate Court

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

also taken note of relationship between the parties and delay is not properly explained and the same is not substantiated by placing any material on record and hence, comes to the conclusion that no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay and hence, dismissed the application and consequently dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the present

second appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that the Trial Court committed an error in granting the relief without examining the material on record and the First Appellate Court also committed an error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and not considering the matter on merits. Hence, this Court has to admit the appeal and give an opportunity to the appellants to contest the matter.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also considering the grounds which have been urged in the second appeal, though it is contended that the First Appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the application for

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

condonation of delay and in order to substantiate the contention with regard to the delay is concerned, except examining P.W.1 and producing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.138/2009, nothing is placed on record. Hence, the First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons are given to condone the delay and in order to condone the delay of 1,257 days, each day’s delay ought to have been explained.

The Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS., v. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969, has categorically held that the appellant’s counsel first has to establish sufficient cause with regard to the delay is concerned and the matter cannot be considered on merits. In the case on hand, there is an inordinate delay of 1,257 days in filing the first appeal and the same is not substantiated by placing any material on record and hence, the question of condoning the delay does not arise and the First Appellate Court rightly dismissed the same. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame any substantial question

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:47694 RSA No. 1410 of 2024

HC-KAR

of law when each day’s delay has not been explained and sufficient cause is not shown and hence, no ground to invoke Section 100 of CPC.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31