SRI M A VEERABHADRACHARI v. M A MANJUNATHA AHCAR

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.90 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SRI M A VEERABHADRACHARI S/O LATE BHARMACHARI SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

1. SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

2. SMT. KALAMMA W/O. NAGARAJACHARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

3. M. V. MOUNESHACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

4. M. V. CHANNABASAVACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

5. M. V. DEVENDRACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.264, RAJEEV GANDHI BADAVANE, YERAGUNTE ROAD, NEAR NEW CAMP, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025 HC-KAR DAVANAGERE - 577 002 (BY SRI. SUNIL S. NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

M A MANJUNATHA AHCAR S/O LATE BHARAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

M. A. VEERAPAKSHACHAR S/O LATE BHARAMACHARI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.1264, SPS NAGARA, BUDAL ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002

M V CHANDRASHEKHARACHARI S/O LATE M A VEERABHADRACHARI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.264, RAJEEV GANDHI BADAVANE, YERAGUNTE ROAD, NEAR NEW CAMP, DAVANAGERE - 577 002 …RESPONDENTS THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.118/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE., DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED IN OS NO.647/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JMFC, DAVANAGERE. JUDGE AND THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. There is a delay of 521 days in filing the appeal. In support of the application for condonation of delay, an affidavit is sworn to that he had the knowledge of the dismissal of the appeal and in para 4 of the affidavit it is stated that the disposal of the appeal was brought to the notice of the appellant who filed the affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay. It is sworn in the affidavit that immediately copy was obtained and immediately after securing the certified copy of the judgment, counsel has not informed him to file an appeal before the appellate court, but could not contact the Advocate. It is also stated in the affidavit that all his family members fell ill. Consequent upon the receiving the information that the appeal was dismissed, he went into depression and hence, could not contact the Advocate and file the appeal in time.

3. Having considered the grounds urged in para 4 of the affidavit, it is clear that though he had the knowledge that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44836 RSA No. 90 of 2025 HC-KAR the appeal was dismissed, he has not taken any steps. Since there is a concurrent finding, the averments made in para 5 of the affidavit that all the family members fell ill cannot be accepted inasmuch as there are five appellants in the appeal and also the reason that he went into depression cannot be a reason for not filing the appeal. Therefore, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 521 days in filing of the appeal and the reason assigned in the application is not satisfactory and the appellants have to show the sufficient cause and delay of each day has to be explained, the same is not done. Hence, there is no ground to condone the delay. The application filed for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23