Dismissed¶¶42

Sri T M Shankarappa v. Louis P Fonseca

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2026RFA/2093/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC RFA 2093/2024 (INJ) decided 05.03.2026 by Justice R. Nataraj: condonation of 323 days' delay rejected as cause unsatisfactory; regular first appeal against decree of perpetual injunction in O.S.No.7342/2017 dismissed; connected I.A.No.2/2024 dismissed; plea based on lapse of land acquisition under S.24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 and W.P. No.21640/2023; appellants' conduct described as smacking of mischief to keep litigation alive.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and I.A. No.2/2024 was dismissed as not surviving for consideration. ¶¶42

Sri T M Shankarappa Vs Louis P Fonseca — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:13497 RFA No. 2093 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2093 OF 2024 (INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI T. M. SHANKARAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶10

SRI T. M. MUNIRAJU S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶11

SRI T. M. CHANDRAPPA S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶12

SMT. T. M. VANAMALA D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE RESIDING AT TUBARAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 066

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA SHETKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

LOUIS P. FONSECA S/O. LATE JANARIO FONSECA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:13497 RFA No. 2093 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

R/AT NO.1441, 17^TH C MAIN 1^ST STAGE, 5^TH BLOCK HBR LAYOUT BANGALURU-560 043

¶24

…RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI BYRE GOWDA N., ADVOCATE)

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.7342/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is filed by the defendants/appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.7342/2017 by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by which, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed.

¶31

I.A. No.1/2024 is filed for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing this appeal.

¶32

(i) It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that this appeal arises out of the judgment and

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13497 RFA No. 2093 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

decree dated 07.07.2023 passed in O.S.No.7342/2017 by the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, by which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and a decree of perpetual injunction was granted.

¶36

(ii) It is stated that the appellants were wrongly advised not to challenge the said judgment and decree as the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is further stated that a writ petition in that regard was also filed by the appellants in W.P. No.21640/2023 and that the learned Single Judge of this Court relied upon the judgment and decree passed in the instant suit to hold that the appellants were not in possession. The appellants are therefore before this Court to challenge the judgment and decree passed in the suit referred above. It is therefore claimed that the delay caused in filing this appeal is due to a bona fide mistake and the appellants pray that the same be condoned.

¶37

The suit in O.S.No.7342/2017 was filed by the

¶38

respondent herein, who is an allottee of a site, against the

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13497 RFA No. 2093 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

appellants herein whose land was acquired for the purposes of forming a Co-operative society. The said suit after contest was decreed on 07.07.2023. It appears that in the meanwhile, the appellants had also filed a writ petition before this Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition of land had lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the meanwhile, the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and an order of perpetual injunction was granted. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment and decree passed in the suit held that the appellants were not in possession and therefore the acquisition cannot be set at nought. The appellants therefore knew fully well about the decree passed in the suit, yet they waited for the decision in W.P.No.21640/2023. The conduct of the appellants in filing this belated appeal therefore smacks of mischief, as the appellants intend to keep a litigation alive by filing this appeal.

¶42

In that view of the matter, the cause shown for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing this appeal is not satisfactory and consequently, I.A.No.1/2024 is rejected and as a result, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:13497 RFA No. 2093 of 2024

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46