Dismissed¶61

Smt Bylamma v. Smt Mylamma

Karnataka HC24 Jul 2026RSA/1547/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court RSA dismissed at admission over condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 594 days' delay; insufficient cause; old-age ailment claim unsupported by material; no explanation by co-appellants; partition suit O.S. No.469/2008; first appeal R.A. No.35/2018 allowed below; I.A.No.1/2024 dismissed; consequential dismissal of appeal.

What did the court decide?

No material was placed on record to substantiate that Appellant No.1 was suffering from old age ailments and taking treatment such that she was precluded from approaching the Court for a period of 594 days. ¶54

Smt Bylamma Vs Smt Mylamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:38761 RSA No. 1547 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010629872024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2024 (PAR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. BYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, W/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, D/O. GANGAIAH, R/AT SASIVEGATTA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, D/O. GANGAIAH, R/AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶13

SMT. SHARADAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O. SRINIVASAMURTHY, R/AT OBALAPURA VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶14

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA KUMARA NIRVANI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:38761 RSA No. 1547 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

CNR: KAHC010629872024

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT MYLAMMA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, W/O. HANUMAIAH, R/AT THYAGADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶20

SMT. SIDDAMMA, AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS, W/O. LATE GANGAIAH, R/AT THYAGADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶21

SMT. RAMAKKA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, D/O. LATE GANGAIAH, R/AT KULUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶22

SRI. MAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGAIAH,

¶23

SRI. MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O. GANGAIAH,

¶24

RESPONDENT 4 AND 5 ARE

¶25

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:38761 RSA No. 1547 of 2024

¶28

CNR: KAHC010629872024

¶29

R/AT THYAGADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 132.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. OMKARA MURTHY G, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT))

¶32

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 15.12.2022 PASSED IN RA NO.35/2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA., ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.09.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.469/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA.

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on

¶36

I.A.No.1/2024.

¶37

There is no representation on behalf of the

¶38

respondent.

¶39

I.A.No.1/2024 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking for condonation of delay of 594 days in filing the appeal.

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:38761 RSA No. 1547 of 2024

¶43

CNR: KAHC010629872024

¶44

In support of the application, an affidavit is filed. Relevant paragraph of the affidavit reads as under:

¶45

“13. I submit that, being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court order in R.A. No. 35/2018 dated 15th day of December, 2022, allowed the appeal of the Respondent No.1 herein and there is about 1323 delay in filling the Regular Second Appeal before this Hon'ble Court.

¶46

14. I submit that, the Appellant No.1 aged about 68 years and suffering from old age elementary problems and other Appellants too. Hence, they could not contact their on record counsel and get the case status, very recently they come to know impugned order had been passed by the First appellate court.

¶47

15. I submit that, thereafter, Appellant come to know that, the Regular Appeal is allowed. Further Appellant decided to challenge the impugned order before this Hon'ble court and contacted on record counsel, the counsel suggested that, bring the documents then he applied the certified copy of order including other documents before the concerned courts.

¶48

16. I submit that, due to above stated bona fide reasons the Appellant could not prefer to file the instant appeal day's before this Hon'ble court in time. Thus there is a delay 594 days in filling the above said appeal on account

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:38761 RSA No. 1547 of 2024

¶52

CNR: KAHC010629872024

¶53

of bona fide reasons and due to circumstance, beyond his control and there was not deliberate. I further state that, the matter pertaining to rights over the valuable immovable properties and requires liberal consideration by this Hon'ble court to condone the delay in filling the appeal and disposed the same on merits. I state that, Appellants having a good case on merits and likely to be succeed instant appeal on merits and legal propositions and in meanwhile if the delay is not condoned it would amount shutting down his rights just due to technical point. Hence, the annexed application.”

¶54

To substantiate that appellant No.1 was suffering from old age ailments and taking treatment and she was precluded from approaching the Court for a period of 594 days, no material is placed on record. No explanation is also forthcoming as to why other two appellants did not approach the Court in time. The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs and failed to get their suit decreed for partition.

¶55