Smt.Yashoda Vs Sri.Muniraju — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt.Yashoda Vs Sri.Muniraju — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should frame a substantial question of law with regard to the dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of delay (delay of 1820 days; alleged insufficiency of cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act). +1 more

Court's answer

Sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1820 days in preferring the first appeal was not shown; the medical certificate relied upon related only to knee pain and no document of inpatient treatment was placed before this Court.

Ratio / Principle

The delay from 2013 to 2018 was not explained although each day's delay had to be explained, even though an opportunity was given to the appellants to show sufficient cause.

Key takeaways

Since the inordinate delay of 1820 days was not satisfactorily explained by the appellants, this Court does not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame the substantial question of law as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants; there are no grounds.ratio¶63
The contention that the First Appellate Court erred in discussing the merits while considering the condonation-of-delay application cannot be accepted; the First Appellate Court's reference to the sale deed of the year 1975 was a mere observation with regard to the fact that there was an earlier sale deed.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC by the legal representatives of original plaintiff C Shankar against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2020 in R.A.No.15050/2018 (First Appellate Court, Devanahalli), which had dismissed their appeal filed with a delay of 1820 days, and against the Trial Court judgment dated 08.11.2013 in O.S.No.1168/2007 whereby their suit seeking declaration of absolute ownership was dismissed on the finding that the suit properties had been purchased by the defendants' father from the plaintiffs' mother under registered sale deeds dated 09.06.1975 and 30.08.1976. Held: while seeking condonation of a delay of 1820 days, sufficient cause must be shown and none was shown; the medical certificates produced showed only knee pain (of appellant No.5) with no document of inpatient treatment; the delay from 2013 to 2018 was not explained day by day despite opportunity to lead evidence; the objection that the First Appellate Court discussed merits while dealing with condonation was rejected as its remark on the 1975 sale deed was a mere observation. No substantial question of law arose; the second appeal was dismissed. (H.P. Sandesh J.; decided 10.06.2025.)

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2051 OF 2021 (DEC/POS)

BETWEEN:

SMT.YASHODA W/O LATE C SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

SRI SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE C SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

SRI C CHINNAPPA S/O LATE C SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

APPELLANTS No.1 TO 3 ARE

R/AT No.24, UTTARE GOWDA STREET NEAR MUTYALAMMA TEMPLE NEAR SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560027

[C SHANKAR – PLAINTIFF No.1 IN O.S.No.1168/207 IS DEAD, HIS LRS ARE

BROUGHT ON RECORD APPELLANTS No.1 – 3]

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE KENGERI CHINNAPPA

W/O NAGARAJ

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO 16/A2 KRUMBIGAL ROAD LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI BENGLAURU - 560004

ALSO R/AT KONGHTATTA VILLAGE DODDABALLAPURA TALUK & DIST – 560203

SMT. KAMALAMMA @ KAMALA D/O LATE KENGERI CHINNAPPA W/O SHAMSUNDAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO 16/A2, KRUMBIGAL ROAD LALBAGH WEST GATE BENGALURU – 560004

APPELLANT No.1 TO 5 REPRESENTS THROUGH THEIR GPA HOLDER – S GIRISHA S/O SHAMSUNDER AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT No.16/B2, KRUMBIGAL ROAD LALBAGH WEST GATE BENGALURU – 560004

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI PRADEEP H S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O MANNIAHNAVARA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

SRI MUNIKRISHNA S/O MANNIAHNAVARA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

RESPONDENT No.1 & 2 ARE R/AT MELINAHOTA HAKKUPETE DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562110

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED IN R.A.NO.15050/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DEVANAHALLI AND ETC.

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 appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree

dated 05.02.2020 passed in R.A.No.15050/2018 by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.1168/2007 by the Trial Court.

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties and the defendants are in illegal and

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

unauthorised possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants appeared and contend that their father M.Muniyhappa has purchased the suit schedule properties from the mother of the plaintiffs under the registered sale deeds dated 09.06.1975 and 30.08.1976 and hence, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same as owners. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties was purchased in the year 1975 and 1976 by the father of the defendants from the mother of the plaintiffs.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in R.A.No.15050/2018 and while filing the said appeal, there was a delay of 1820 days. Hence, the First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record formulated the points on delay as well as interference in the judgment of the Trial Court and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that the appellants have not stated anything that

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

the appellants were suffering from any ailments which prevented them from approaching the Court in time to prefer an appeal. However, in the evidence, the appellant has produced the medical documents which were marked as Exs.C2 to C4 to show that appellant No.5 is suffering from knee pain. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the fact that the suit was filed on 13.12.2007 and the judgment was delivered by the Trial Court on 08.11.2013 and also the answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 was discussed and also the judgments which have been relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are also considered by the First Appellate Court and comes to the conclusion that there is no dispute that if the Court finds merit in the appeal considering the grounds urged therein, the Appellate Court must be little liberal in exercising its discretion to condone the delay in the interest of justice. Having made such observation, comes to the conclusion that in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the grandmother of the plaintiffs which was sold in favour of father of the defendants through registered sale deeds in the year 1975 and 1976 itself and since then, they

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Therefore, even on merit also, the appellants have no case and also discussed in detail that it is settled position of law that though the discretion is given to the Appellate Court to condone the delay, there must be a satisfaction of the Court in respect of the cause shown by the appellant and the same must be acceptable and genuine. The burden is upon the appellants to show the sufficient cause which prevented them from to approach the appellate Court in time by filing the appeal. The First Appellate Court also made an observation that though the appellants have placed medical records, the same are in respect of the knee pain and also an observation is made that appellant Nos.1 to 4 are not having any ailment to file the appeal and comes to the conclusion that in order to condone the delay of more than five years, no sufficient cause is shown by the appellants and hence, dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court has not considered the material on record and committed an error in dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1820 days and this Court has to frame the substantial question of law with regard to the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay. The learned counsel would contend that the First Appellate Court committed an error in making the discussion with regard to the merits of the case also and the same is not warranted and this Court has to frame the substantial question of law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly in the suit before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners. Nothing is stated with regard to the sale deed which was executed in the year 1975 and 1976 by the mother of the plaintiffs and suppressed the very sale, but sought for the relief of declaration. The

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

defendants took the specific defence that there was a sale made by the mother of the plaintiffs on 09.06.1975 and on 30.08.1976 and placed on record the C.C. of the sale deed of the year 1975 and 1976 as per Exs.D.6 and 7. The Trial Court taken note that once the property was already sold, P.W.1 pleads ignorance about those persons on what basis their names have been mentioned in the records. The Trial Court also taken note of that after the sale, possession was with the defendants and dismissed the suit.

It is important to note that the First Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay in view of the judgments referred in the appeal, taken note of it and made an observation that on merits, if it requires consideration, the Appellate Court must consider the delay in liberal approach. The First Appellate Court has made an observation with regard to the sale deed of the year 1975 and hence the very contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the First Appellate Court while considering the application for condonation of delay, discussed the same on merits cannot be accepted and the same is an observation

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

HC-KAR

with regard to the fact that earlier there was a sale deed of the year 1975. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of P.W.1, who is the general power of attorney holder and none of the appellants have come before the Court and only examined the general power of attorney holder and even he is not aware about the facts of the litigation and the same is also taken note of by the Appellate Court. It is important to note that while seeking for condonation of delay of 1820 days, sufficient cause must be shown and no such sufficient cause is shown. Though relied upon the medical certificate, the same is only for knee pain and no document is placed before this Court also for having taken treatment as an inpatient. The delay from 2013 to 2018 has not been explained and each day delay has to be explained and the same has not been explained even though an opportunity is given to explain the delay by allowing the witnesses to show sufficient cause. When such being the case and when there is an inordinate delay of 1820 days, the same is not satisfactorily explained by the appellants. Hence, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial

NC: 2025:KHC:19621 RSA No. 2051 of 2021

10 -

HC-KAR

question of law as contended by the learned counsel for the

appellants and there are no grounds.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The second appeal is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH)

JUDGE

SN/MD