Karnataka High Court
Sri Babu S/O Sri Krishnappa vs Sri H Viswanath on 23 January, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
TH1s APPEAL IS FILED U /s as QECPCAoA1N'sT__TH.EI oRDER DATED: 05.01.2009 PAssED IN o.s.6'7_89/2.005«oNV._ THE FILE OF THE l~ADDL,.* crry CIVIL Ab D A SESSIONS '' JUDGE, EANoALoRE, ALLOW'--1NG_ THE"APPL1c-AT1.o'N~PiLED " ' BY THE DEFENDANT NO.7 U';<o_* 7, R£i.14'oP QPC. FOR REJEcT1oN OF THE PLATNT. _ * THIS APPEAL coMiNo*._oN .f+'GR»ORDI£RS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE =EoL1,o$7v1'No':-V__ ;uncMaN+ ~ The '-to__vp3. 'Q.S__.No.6789/2005 have come the order dated 5-1- 2009 far as?-to l.A.IV filed by 7th defendant seeking rc_jelctio1';_ofthel"'_plaint as against 701 defendant. appeal hasivcorne up today to consider Misc. CV1. A filed seeking condonation of delay of the appeal.
" llI1(1~CI'I "2v:A'3~The brief facts leading up to this appeal are as .-"J Plaintiffs--l & 2 are children of the deceased P if u .._.f{rishnappa and 3" plaintiff is his widow. The case of the plaintiffs is that said Krishnappa while he was alive, sold portions of suit schedule property in favour of "W several persons and that the said sale was_.fi.ot__tl*-:5" . benefit of joint family or for the and.'(:hildren;:and was for the Vices. Therefore, O.S.No.6789/2005 seeking.j__ transactions that were done:_ll\'by him. 'land hialso for partition of the suit them by metes and bounds.
3. came to be filed Vlll, out of which, I.A.IV'.Yzis by 7"! defendant under Order Rule rejection of the plaint on the gr-vound"that"suit* slehedule property was sold in his fax"/Curl"-by the deeealsed Krishnappa on behalf of himself Children and also his other family membevrs and as such, sale deeds executed in his favour is just and proper and therefore, the suit filed as against hirirjseeking to set aside the sale made in his favour is iiotjcorreet and the said plaint is required to be rejected if was against 71" defendant.
4. In the said suit, other applications were', ~ 701 defendant and also by the plaintiffs. ;"l'h"e' if heard all the applications to'getl_i'er:' 'Ila:
common order on 5« l-2OO9jwh_Verein-Vthe %jat.i_oar1:3filed ; by 7"' defendant in I.A.IV ll CPC came to be alltiwediaf"a.ndf_:fsuit' "him was rejected. The said the present appeal.
5: of 589 days. This day, 1:he__ [up before this Court for considering_thei._app*lication in Misc.Cvl.No.20262/2010 filed.--seeking..condon'ation of delay of 589 days in filing the..f'ap'peal...a Heard the counsel appearing for the regaifding the said application and also on the ofthei-_.case.
A * 6)" It is seen that the suit in O.S.No.6789/2005 is "filed for partition and as well as declaration that sale "-'deeds executed in favour of 7"' defendant on 30-11- l995 and 308-1998 in favour of defendants--6 & 7 in "*1 respect of portions of the suit schedule prop"_ert1yV.'_'i:s: _ binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. «suit; several allegations were made appellants herein against their father;' that aforesaid sale made in favoiirrfof defe"nda1ei~ts--é';§&VV7 are not for family necessities and fofrfthefvices of deceased Krishnappaffffand are not binding on order dated 5- l~2009 xfzgrvithbther applications ~ seen that there are allegationsAoftilireii'plaintiffs threatening the defendants from also trying to interfere with theigf 'I5Qssess'iOi:i;V" if . /.. trial Court after hearing all the ap'plicatiorrs on merit. has rightly come to the ..conclusion that the application filed by 71" defendant if --..Vse.e.lf{ing rejection of plaint on the ground that the sale .. V_..deed made in his favour by the deceased Krishnappa is Valid and proper and therefore suit filed as against 7"1 LLL1 -10- defendant does not survive in the observations made therein which, this C_o=urtiacc'ept.s if just and reasonable in the facts andAtzircurnstancestaoff the case. On going through the and.~lav.ern1efit"iin the plaint, it is seen that are on the raise in Bangalore, vi/idow and children in the sale deeds executed by§..t«he__'fath:erZ their death on one or thgeand trying to make extortilonistrfloveii S.€tt.lerne*nt--.v it is also seen that after l.A.I_V, is reyision petition is filed in CRP NOL.l::93_'/2009 folrvlsiniilar purpose and there appears to _ be "so1*n_e ». "settlement arrived at and according to plaintiffs; 'Alas not honoured by the concerned persons to therlsgaid settlement and therefore, they have sought relx/iviing of the suit and consequently, they have filed a .l;«'§JI'ltH petition challenging the order passed on l.A.lV in ll.ll'W.P.No.30630/2010 which subsequently came to be withdrawn on 18-10-2010 and thereafter, present Raul -11- appeal is filed on 15-11-2010. the is an inordinate delay of 589
9. The facts of the filing of CRP No. 193/2009' by the parties to this appeal to themselves and others" consideration for the sale ._t,h-ediig father/husband in the yearsfl995. they have failed in the up in this appeal to Challenge'<:orreetnes_s" otherwise of the order rejecting againlsti___7P*1 defendant. On going through the .A ordjer this Court finds that the reasons given in rejecting I.A.IV appears to be just and prop'eI*i_._
10. However, without going into the merits of the ease, so far as the Conduct of the parties are Concerned, they were never serious in challenging the correctness of the order passed on I.A.IV. Since they failed to get the required settlement in CRP. No. 193/2009 as "\ -12- retaliation of the same, present appeal reviving the present suit. The conduct.
would clearly show that the defendant is frivolous. Such entertained. However, considering the ~faci. there is inordinate delay in. is not properly explained there were litigations Court will not accept the" are in the nature of suit to come to the settlernent} v 1 not revision or writ petition which is .°=fyile'dl:' sveriolusly challenging the correctness or otherwise by the trial Court on I.A.IV in the suitI3--g'i'i: that view of the matter, this Court finds that appellants have failed to state acceptable A reasons for the inordinate delay of 589 days in filing the Alappleal by explaining each days delay as required in law. Wlliven otherwise, this appeal does not require to be considered on merit.
'*1 .13,
12. In that Vi€W of the matter, the app1i<;:jéi't:i:.('j'11;."in Misc.Cv1.No.20262/2010 filed seeking delay of 589 days in filing thi_s~~»VaLppea1.VMi'g* Consequently, appeal also standlesé diSrnfss€d."~ V'