Thara Sherigarthi Vs Meera R Sherigarthi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Thara Sherigarthi Vs Meera R Sherigarthi — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 550 days in filing the Regular Second Appeal should be condoned (I.A.No.1/2020)

Court's answer

The medical certificate did not disclose the period of suffering, whether the deponent was precluded from moving out to furnish instructions to the advocate, or bed rest, and therefore did not establish sufficient cause

Ratio / Principle

Among the seven appellants, the 5th and 7th (male members) were hale and healthy, and apart from stating that the second appellant was in charge of filing the appeal, no material particulars were shown to condone the huge delay of 550 days

Key takeaways

Since the decree only declared shares (modified on the death of the mother by the First Appellate Court), the Court found no good reasons to condone the huge delay of 550 days in filing the appealratio¶60-61
The appellants, as natural sharers, had also been granted share in the suit propertyratio¶62-63
I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed and, consequently, the appeal is also dismissedratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay — 550 days — Regular Second Appeal under S.100 CPC against judgment and decree dated 25.06.2018 in RA.No.129/1997 (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi) confirming decree dated 11.07.2017 in OS No.107/1992 (partition of properties left by father and mother) — I.A.No.1/2020 supported by affidavit of second appellant and Medical Certificate dated 20.06.2020 (high blood pressure, diabetes, joint pain) — certificate silent on period of suffering, incapacity to instruct counsel and bed rest — seven appellants, of whom two male members hale and healthy — no material particulars showing sufficient cause — on merits, decree only declared shares; First Appellate Court held mother's Will not proved and granted shares by natural succession; appellants as natural sharers already granted share — no good reasons to condone the huge delay — I.A.No.1/2020 dismissed; appeal dismissed.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2021 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

THARA SHERIGARTHI

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS W/O SANJEEVA SHERIGARA R/AT AROOR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN - 576 269

SHASHIKALA G SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS W/O NARAYANA SHERIGARA

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

PUSHPA G SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O KRISHNA SHERIGARA RETD. POST MASTER CHANTAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN-576 213

VIJAYA G SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI

BHARATH

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021

HC-KAR

6. BHARATHI

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI

7. MAHENDRA

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O RATHNA SHERIGARTHI

RESPONDENTS NO.2, 4 TO 7 ALL ARE RESIDING AT RATHNA NILAYA AGRAHARA, CHANTAR VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA POST - 576 213 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MEERA R SHERIGARTHI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS W/O RAJU SHERIGARA R/AT AGRAHARA OF CHANTHAR VILLAGE BRAHMAVARA POST - 576 213 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.06.2018 PASSED IN RA.No.129/1997 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE UDUPI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.07.2017 PASSED IN OS No.107/1992 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021

HC-KAR

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Sri. Vyasa Rao K.S., learned counsel for

the appellants and Sri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel for the respondent.

I.A.No.1/2020 is filed seeking condonation of

delay of 550 days in filing the appeal. The application is supported by an affidavit of the second appellant Smt. Shashikala G. Sherigarthi.

She has stated in the affidavit that she was in charge of the appeal and she knew the facts and circumstances of the case and she was suffering from illhealth after the Judgment came to be passed in R.A. No.129/1997 and as such delay is not intentional and sought for condoning the delay.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021

HC-KAR

In support of her contentions in the affidavit,

Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Devadas Kamath dated 20.06.2020 is filed wherein it is stated that the deponent was suffering from high blood pressure, diabetes and joint pain.

Pertinently, the Medical Certificate does not contain the period of suffering and whether the defendant was precluded from moving out in furnishing the instructions to the advocate for preferring the appeal. Medical certificate is also silent as to the bed rest.

There are as many as seven appellants who are defendants No.2 to 8 in the court below. Among them 7^th appellant and 5^th appellant are the male members who were hale and healthy. Except stating that the second appellant was in charge of filing the appeal, no other material particulars are found so as to condone the huge delay of 550 days in preferring this second appeal.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021

HC-KAR

Even on merits, this Court noted that the suit is

filed for partition in respect of the properties left behind by father and mother.

Trial Court decreed the suit only with regard to

the share of the father, taking note of the fact that mother of the parties was still alive.

However, when the appeal was pending before the First Appellate Court, mother also passed away and present appellants opposed the suit on the ground that mother had executed a Will in favour of one of the appellants.

First Appellate Court negated the said contention after recording the evidence and held that the will is not proved and granted the share as per natural succession.

Thus, since only shares have been declared in

the decree of the Trial Court, which was modified taking note of the death of the mother in the First Appellate

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29364 RSA No. 1231 of 2021

HC-KAR

Court, this Court does not find any good reasons to

condone the huge delay of 550 days in filing the appeal.

Moreover, as a natural sharers, these appellants have also

been granted share in the suit property.

12. Accordingly, following order:

ORDER

I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed. Consequently,

Appeal is also dismissed .

Sd/-

(V SRISHANANDA)

JUDGE

SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58