Karnataka High Court
Smt. Devamma vs Smt. Indramma on 15 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36466
RSA No. 767 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2024 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DEVAMMA
S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
2. SRI. MAHADEVA
S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
2(A). SMT. SAVITHA,
W/O. LATE SRI. MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
2(B). MISS SUSHMITHA. M. N.
D/O. LATE SRI. MAHADEVA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
Digitally 2(C). SRI. SACHIN. M
signed by S/O. LATE SRI. MAHADEVA,
MALATESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
KC
Location: 3. SRI. LAKSHMANA
HIGH S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
4. SMT. M. N. VINODHA
D/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUGGANAHALLI POST,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36466
RSA No. 767 of 2024
HC-KAR
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PATTABI C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. INDRAMMA
D/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. SRI. M. N. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
S/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. SMT. UMA
D/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
4. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O. LATE NANJAIAH @ THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT MADAHALLI VILLAGE,
DUGGANAHALLI POST,
KIRUGAVALU HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT- 571101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DINAKAR M.P, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3,
V/O DATED 11.09.2025 NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH,
R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.11.2019 PASSED IN RA
NO.14/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MALAVALLI, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36466
RSA No. 767 of 2024
HC-KAR
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.12.2015 PASSED IN OS
NO.19/2008 ON THE FILE OF PRL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MALAVALLI.
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 Pattabi C., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M.P. Dinakar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 3 on I.A.No.1/2024, which is filed to condone the huge delay of 810 days in filing the appeal.
2. In the affidavit filed accompanying the application I.A.No.1/2024 at paragraph Nos.3 to 10, it has been sworn to as under :-
"3. I submit that my husband was an handicapped person having amputation of complete permanent paralysis of limbs and the copy of the certificate issued by the Medical Authority is enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
4. I submit that similarly my brother-in-law the 4th Defendant in Original Suit and Fourth Respondent in -4- NC: 2025:KHC:36466 RSA No. 767 of 2024 HC-KAR First Appeal also is an handicapped person as he is dum and duff copy of the certificate issued by the Medical Authority is enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.
5. I submit that due to the reasons stated above only my mother-in-law the First Defendant in Original Suit and First Respondent in First Appeal on her own on her behalf and on behalf of other family members was following the case and appeal by engaging Advocate and attending the case and Appeal regularly.
6. I submit that Respondents herein have filed a suit for Partition and for Separate Possession in OS.No. 19/2008 before the learned civil judge at Malavalli and the said suit was dismissed as per the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.2015 against the Respondents herein.
7. I submit that being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the Respondents herein have prepared an Appeal in RA.No.14/2016 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Malavalli and thereafter my mother-in-law engaged an Advocate and she was regularly traveling and appearing in the above Appeal also.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:36466 RSA No. 767 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. I submit that my mother-in-law who is now aged about 81 years and who is a patient due to old age (copies of the medical records enclosed) and now she informed me that after receipt of notice in the above said appeal from the learned Senior Civil Judge, Malavalli she has appeared through their Advocate one Sri, G.K.Puttaswamy and thereafter she was very regular in appearing before the court on all hearing dates and at one stage her said Advocate informed her that in the Appellate Court the appearance of parties not required regularly and he informed her that he will inform the next dates and stages on every hearing dates and when the Appeal is posted for Arguments and her presence is not necessary on all hearings.
9. I submit that thereafter without appearing in person for some of the hearings she was collected the next date of hearings from her Advocate through her son Mah adeva (my husband) mobile phone and thereafter due to health condition of her sons and her and also some other personal inconvenience she was very much busy and she was not able to contact her Advocate regularly on all the further hearing dates with a hope that her Advocate will inform her about the proceedings.
10. I submit as stated above due to health conditions and some personal family inconvenience -6- NC: 2025:KHC:36466 RSA No. 767 of 2024 HC-KAR thereafter she was unable to contact her Advocate and not aware about the proceedings and in the meanwhile from the year 1920 her son Sri Mahadeva (my husband -who is an Handicapped) become seriously ill and after giving treatment in different Hospital and from all known Doctors as become everything futile and Sri Mahadeva was expired on 16.02.2021. The copy of the Medical Certificate and Death Certificate of him are enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of Honourable court."
3. As could be seen from the cause title of the appeal, there are other appellants, who were hale and healthy and are of young in age, who did not chose to file the appeal in time; nor any explanation is forthcoming insofar as the appellant Nos.2(b), 2(c) and 4 are concerned.
4. As could be seen from the aforesaid paragraphs, reasons assigned are vague and without there being any proper proof thereof.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC:36466 RSA No. 767 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Though in the affidavit, it has been stated that medical records have been annexed along with the affidavit, no such medical records are forthcoming along with I.A.No.1/2024.
6. Further, when 2nd defendant died, one of the legal representatives has chosen to file the affidavit.
7. In other words the 4th appellant, who was defendant No.5 before the Trial Court did not chose to file the appeal in time. No reason is forthcoming as to what prevented the 5th defendant from approaching the Court in time.
8. Taking note of these aspects of matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that reasons assigned in the affidavit are not to be termed as sufficient reasons, as is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025 in SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRs. VS. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS and huge delay of 810 days cannot be condoned.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:36466 RSA No. 767 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. Accordingly I.A.No.1/2024 is dismissed.
Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
SD/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT-PS