IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.622 OF 2023 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. G.M.SIDRAMAPPA,

S/O MALLAPALAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,

KUDLURU POST,

AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,

TARIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. PURUSHOTHAM G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

1. SRI. G.M. ONKARAPPA,

by DEVIKA M

S/O. MALLAPALAIAH,

Location: HIGH

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

COURT OF

R/O. MUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE,

KARNATAKA

DISHANI POST, ARSIKERE TALUK,

HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

2. SRI. G.M.JAYAPPA,

S/O MALLAPALAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE,

KUDLURU POST,

AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI,

TARIKERE TALUK-573201.

3. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O SIDDANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLURU POST, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-573201.

4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O GADARI PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. K. GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLURU POST, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK-573201.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.11.2022 PASSED IN R.A.NO.62/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC, TARIKERE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.20/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendants and hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court granted the relief, since the defendants did not appear and contest the matter. However, the Trial Court considering the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties. The same is challenged before the First Appellate Court by filing an appeal and there was a delay of 10 years 20 days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate Court given an opportunity to lead evidence and considered the material on record that notice has been served against all the defendants and none of the defendants have appeared and contested the matter. The First Appellate Court also observed that the Trial Court even taken note of time was given for appearance and did not choose to appear and though the suit was filed for the relief of partition, ultimately passed the judgment on 06.11.2009. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of the appellant, wherein he categorically admitted about the filing of the suit and also extracted the answers elicited from the mouth of the appellant during the course of cross-examination. He claims that the plaintiff is having a right over the property, but he had cultivated the property. However, he categorically admits that he is enjoying the fruits of the cultivation and also getting income of more than Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. These materials were taken note of by the First Appellate Court and considering the delay as well as admission on the part of appellant, dismissed the appeal.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that no opportunity was given before the Trial Court. The learned counsel would contend that the suit schedule properties is valued at Rs.23,00,000/- as per the valuation slip, which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court as per Section 17 of the Karnataka Civil Court Act, 1964. Except this ground, no other grounds are urged before this Court. But only contend that the delay was not properly considered by the F