Delay in filing an appeal must be adequately explained; ignorance or counsel's inaction are insufficient grounds to condone significant delay.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for consideration of I.A.No.1/2024 for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the second appeal along with the appeal. The first appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days and the same has not been explained by the appellants herein.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/5^th share in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties from the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first defendant’s mother Bommi Marakalti was in possession and enjoyment of immovable properties of Pejemangoor village of Udupi Taluk. After the death of Bommi Marakalti, defendant No.1 along with her children has been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendant No.1 applied Form No.7 for grant of occupancy right in respect of the said property for and on behalf of her children. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy right by order dated 31.07.1981 in favour of defendant No.1. The item Nos.1 to 5 are the said properties granted to defendant No.1. Out of the children of defendant No.1, Narayan Markal died intestate in the year 2000 leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant No.4 as his legal representatives. The defendant No.1 and her children are also in possession and enjoyment of about 8 cents of land in Sy.No.48/1B item No.6 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The said property is adjacent to the properties enjoyed by defendant No.1 and her children. In the said property, there is a residential house bearing panchayat door No.2/77, Hattikottige, well, coconut trees and fruit bearing trees.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that when the plaintiffs applied for certified copy of the RTC in the second week of September 2005, they came to know that defendant No.3 by making false representation managed to get the said property granted in his name. The saguvali chit issued in favour of defendant No.3 does not confirm exclusive right, title and interest in his favour. Inspite of the grant order, the property has been in joint possession and enjoyment of defendant No.1 and her children. Subsequently, they also came to know that defendant No.3 has managed to get a registered settlement deed dated 03.06.2004 executed by defendant No.1 to settle Sy.No.56/5 Nanja land measuring 42 cents in favour of defendant No.3. The execution and validity are not admitted by the plaintiffs and the said document is not binding on them. The plaintiffs also came to know that defendant No.1 appears to have created charge in respect of item Nos.3, 4 and item No.1 and Sy.No.47/3 to the extent of 78 cents to Netravati Grameen Bank of Kokkarne Branch. The defendant No.1 was not competent to create any charge. Without the joinder of co-owners, the said charge or any alienation is not valid and binding on them. The debt incurred on the charge of the said properties is not utilized for the benefit of defendant No.1 and her children and defendant No.3 has made use of the proceeds of the loan for his own benefit i.e., construction of a house in his own property. The plaintiffs further submit that defendant No.3 is educated and an active politician and influential. The defendant No.1 who is not keeping well for the last three and half years is under the control of defendant No.3 and he is in a possession to dominate defendant No.1 in the matter of getting settlement deed in creation of the charge.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 are placed exparte. The defendant No.3 appeared through his counsel, but he did not file the