Dismissed¶¶55

Smt. Rajamma v. Sri Kumara

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026RSA/1408/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC single-judge RSA dismissed solely on refusal to condone 1346-day delay; Section 5 Limitation Act application rejected because affidavit cited unnamed relatives' failed mediation without any particulars (identity of mediator, dates, participants); partition suit O.S.No.649/2006 Mysuru; First Appellate Court judgment dated 18.04.2016 in RA.No.35/2013 (cross-appeal of defendant No.1 allowed, plaintiffs' suit dismissed); no cases cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Particulars of the alleged mediation are absent: the relative who purportedly tried to mediate is not named, his affidavit was not filed, and no dates, participants or other material details of the mediation effort are pleaded in the application. ¶¶46

Smt. Rajamma Vs Sri Kumara — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the cause shown in the affidavit (alleged mediation efforts by relatives) constitutes 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the huge delay of 1346 days in filing the regular second appeal (I.A.No.1/2021).

¶¶28

Court's answer

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

The averments in the affidavit are not sufficient to condone the huge delay of 1346 days; the cause shown cannot be termed 'sufficient cause' as found in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the rights of the parties have been settled long back.

¶¶53

Key takeaways

The application (I.A.No.1/2021) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is dismissed.ratio¶¶54
Consequently, the regular second appeal itself is dismissed.ratio¶¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal No. 1408 of 2021 (under Section 100 CPC) by the plaintiff-side appellants against the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2016 in RA.No.35/2013 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru, which arose from partition suit O.S.No.649/2006 (Court of Small Causes and Sr. C.J., Mysore), decreed in part on 05.12.2012, and in which the appellants' appeal was dismissed while the cross-appeal of respondent No.1/defendant was allowed, resulting in dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. The appeal was taken up only on the question of condonation of a 1346-day delay in filing (I.A.No.1/2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act). The supporting affidavit of appellant No.1 attributed the delay to mediation efforts by unnamed relatives; the Court found the particulars wholly absent — the mediator was not named, his affidavit was not filed, and no dates, participants or other material details were pleaded — and held that the cause shown was not 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, noting additionally that the rights of the parties had been settled long back. The delay-condonation application was dismissed, and consequently the appeal was dismissed. (Oral judgment of V. Srishananda, J., dated 15.06.2026.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1408 OF 2021 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. RAJAMMA W/O JOGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS LALITHADRIPURA ILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TQ.

¶9

SMT. SUNDARAMA W/O SUNDARAMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS PUTEGOWDANAHUNDI PALYA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK.

¶10

…APPELLANTS

¶11

(BY SRI. SYED ABDUL SABOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. KUMARA S/O LINGAIAH AGED 58 YEARS, LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, HOUSE NO.148, VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TQ.

¶15

SMT. RATNAMA W/O ANDANI, 67 YEARS HOUSE NO.148, LALITADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TQ.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021

HC-KAR

3. PUTTATAYAMA

SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

(R3 DEAD APPELLANT 1 AND 2 RESPONDENT 1 AND 2 ARE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED R3)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. JAGANNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 - SERVED)

¶24

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.04.2016 PASSED IN RA.NO.35/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU. ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2012 PASSED IN O.S.NO.649/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND SR. C.J. MYSORE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on I.A.No.1/2021 which is filed to condone the huge delay of 1346 days in filing the appeal.

¶29

Affidavit of appellant No.1 – Rajamma is filed in

¶30

support of the said application. In the affidavit, it is contended that suit filed by the appellants got decreed in part by considered judgment dated 05.12.2012.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Being not satisfied with the decree that has

¶34

been passed by the Trial Court, it is these appellants who had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court in RA No.35/2013.

¶35

Said appeal was dismissed by the First Appellate Court by order dated 18.04.2016.

¶36

Cross appeal filed by respondent No.1/defendant was allowed and suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

¶37

Matter was left at that by the parties. A belated appeal came to be filed before this Court wherein there is a huge delay of 1346 days. Application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay.

¶38

In the affidavit, Rajamma has contended that

¶39

after the order came to be passed in the First Appellate Court, efforts were made to file the second appeal in time but relatives and well wishers of the family wanted to

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

mediate and negotiate the dispute with the respondents and therefore, they kept quite.

¶44

However, the relatives who tried to mediate,

¶45

left the idea of mediating between the parties on account of the adamancy of the respondents and therefore, belated appeal came to be filed.

¶46

Who is the relative who assured the parties and tried to mediate is not even mentioned in the affidavit. Atleast, his affidavit should have been filed.

¶47

Further, when was the mediation effort made and who are all the parties present and whether the appellants were also present in the said mediation and who were all present from the respondents, whether it is defendant No.1 or all other parties who tried to settle the dispute amicably is not forthcoming as the suit is one for partition.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29875 RSA No. 1408 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

No other material details are forthcoming or

¶51

pleaded in the application with regard to the alleged effort of mediation.

¶52

As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the averments made in the affidavit is not sufficient to condone the huge delay of 1346 days in filing the present

¶53

appeal as the cause shown in the affidavit cannot be termed as ‘sufficient cause’ as is found in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, rights of the parties have been settled long back.

¶54

Hence, application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed .

¶55

Consequently, appeal is also dismissed .

¶56

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶57

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Smt. Rajamma v. Sri Kumara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajamma v. Sri Kumara

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

Chamundi Vs D.S.Ravishankar

Smt. Gowramma Vs Rajanna

Sri Gubbi Huchaiah Vs Sri Siddalingaiah

Shivaramaiah Vs Sri K Rangaswamy

Smt Sharadamma Vs Sri Basavaraju

K Mohan Rao Vs Charli Kuvela