SMT NAGARATNA W/O VINOD VERNEKAR vs SRI VINAYAK S/O PANDURANGA SHET

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.101322 OF 2022 (FDP-)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O. VINOD VERNEKAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BANKAPUR ROAD, NEAR POLICE STATION,
MUNDAGOD-581349,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

2. SMT. JAYASHREE @ MALASHREE,
W/O. MAHENDRA RAIKAR,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KOLSIRSI, SIDDAPUR-581329,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. VINAYAK S/O. PANDURANGA SHET,
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
ND
R/O. PARASWADI 2 STAGE,
TH
5 CROSS, HOUSE NO.E2,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020.

2. SRI. VASANT S/O. PANDURANGA SHET,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
R/O. SUVARNAKARARA BANK,
KUMTA-581332,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

BHARATHI
H M

Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Date: 2026.11.05
14:33:44 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

3. SRI. NARAYAN S/O. PANDURANGA SHET,
AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
R/O. HOSAHERAVATTA, KUMTA-581332,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

4.

4A.

4B.

4C.

4D.

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. PANDURANGA SHET,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HOSAHERAVATTA, KUMTA-581332,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
NOW AT NEAR GOURAMMA TEMPLE,
DANDIN SHIVIR, SAMPIGE,
TQ. TURUVEKERE, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

ASHA W/O. MANJUNATH SHET,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HOSAHERAVATTA, KUMTA-581332,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
NOW AT NEAR GOURAMMA TEMPLE,
DANDIN SHIVIR, SAMPIGE,
TQ. TURUVEKERE, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

SRI. MANOJKUMAR S/O. MANJUNATH SHET,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC. GOLDSMITH,
R/O. SAMPIGE JEWELERS,
TH
S.I.T. MAIN ROAD, NEAR 27 CROSS,
TUMKUR-572103.

SMT. SHEELA W/O. PRASHANTH REVANKAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
ND
R/O. SIDDAGANGA 2 CROSS,
BALAMURI GANAPATI TEMPLE,
TUMKUR-572103.

SMT. SHWETA W/O. GANAPATI SHET,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SHASTRI NAGAR, PLOT NO.43,
VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590003.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

5. SMT. ARUNA W/O RAMESH SHET,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. THIRTHALLI ROAD, RIBBANPET,
HOSANAGAR, DIST. SHIVAMOGGA-577418.

6. SMT. KAMAKSHI W/O. GANGADHAR RAIKER,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. JUMMANAGUDI, HERAVATTA,
KUMTA-581332,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.

7. SMT. SUDHA W/O. GANAPATI RAIKER,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. MACHGON, HEDGE,
KUMTA-581332,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. HANUMESH M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R4(A) TO R4(C), R3, R5, R6 AND R7-NOTICE SERVED;
V/O. DATED 01.04.2026 NOTICE TO R4(D) IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN R.A. NO.
1/2022 DATED 26.09.2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
KUMTA, IN DISMISSING THE I.A.NO.1 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE DECREE PASSED IN F.D.P.
12/2009 DATED 16.07.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE KUMTA AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC.

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

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned
Counsel for Respondents No.1 & 2.
2. Respondents No.6 & 7 in FDP No.12/2009 have
maintained this regular second appeal.
3. The Respondents No.1 and 2 herein had filed the
suit in OS No.127/2008 on the file of learned Civil Judge,
Kumta for the relief of partition and separate possession
claiming their legitimate share in the suit properties. The
appellants herein were parties to the said proceeding as
Defendants No.6 and 7. The said suit came to be decreed on
19.09.2009 after contest. The trial court held that Respondents
th
No.1 and 2 are entitled to 10/45 share each and Respondents
th
No.3 to 7 are entitled to 1/45 share each in the suit
properties. None of the parties to the suit challenged the
judgment and decree of the trial court.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

4. Later, the respondents No.1 and 2 filed FDP
No.12/2009 for division of the properties by metes and bounds,
in terms of the preliminary decree passed in OS No.127/2008
and to draw a final decree. The said petition came to be
allowed on 16.07.2018.
5. The appellants herein along with two others
preferred an appeal in RA No.1/2022 challenging the order
passed in FDP No.12/2009. There was a delay of two years and
363 days in preferring the said appeal. The first appellate court,
after considering the materials on record, held that there is no
justification to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal as
barred by time. Being aggrieved, Respondents No.6 and 7 have
preferred this regular second appeal.
6. Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the
Appellants relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
1
case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Sri
2
Venkategowda Vs Smt. Shivamma and Others

1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 600
2
RSA No.1546/2015 disposed of on 29.06.2016

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

vehemently submitted that while dealing with the applications
for condonation of delay, the first appellate court ought to have
adopted a pragmatic approach than a pedantic approach. He
submitted that the first appellate court took hyper technical
approach while considering the delay application. He submitted
that the substantial rights of the parties cannot be allowed to
be defeated on technical grounds and that the approach of the
first appellate court has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the
impugned order.
7. Admittedly, there was delay of two years and 363
days in preferring the appeal. The reason assigned by the
appellants to seek condonation of the delay is that they being
married daughters, they were residing in different places and
that even Covid-19 pandemic contributed for the delay. The
first appellate court rejected the delay condonation application
on the ground that the appellants were aware of the final
decree passed in FDP No.12/2009 and there was impediment
for them to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

8. The first appellate court also noted that the
applications filed by Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.5
claiming equal share in the suit properties, were rejected much
prior to the disposal of final decree proceeding and that such
orders were not challenged. After drawing up of final decree, an
execution proceeding was initiated in Ex. Case No.151/2019,
wherein Appellant No.2 herein filed similar application claiming
equal share in the suit properties. In the impugned order the
first appellate court has specifically observed about the
admission of Appellant No.2 herein that she is in good
relationship with Respondents No.3 and 4, who used to inform
her about the progress of the case and that they had filed the
applications seeking equal share in the suit properties as per
the say of Respondents No.3 and 4. In the above
circumstances, the first appellate court held that the appellants
have not shown sufficient cause for the delay and the reasons
assigned by the appellants are not believable.
9. Thus, the case papers make it clear that the
appellants did not choose to challenge correctness of the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.127/2008 or the final
decree passed on 16.07.2018. The appellants herein are
claiming equal share in the suit properties based on the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta
Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and Others , reported in 2020
KCCR 1993. In the said case, Hon’ble Apex court has held that
notwithstanding passing of a preliminary decree, the daughters
are to be given share in coparcenary property equal to that of a
son in pending proceedings for final decree or in an appeal. In
the case on hand, the appellants have preferred the appeal
only after drawing up of the final decree and during pendency
of Execution Case No.151/2019. The admissions of Appellant
No.2 during the enquiry on delay condonation application gives
an impression that the appeal was filed at the instigation of
Respondents No.3 and 4 and to disturb the finality reached in
the proceedings. Thus, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the first
appellate court was justified in rejecting the application for
condonation of delay as it lacked bonafide on the part of the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17679
RSA No. 101322 of 2022

CNR: KAHC020174162022

appellants. Hence, it is held that no substantial question of law
arises for consideration in this appeal.
10. In the result, the Court proceeds to pass the

following:
ORDER
dismissed
The regular second appeal is .
Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration.

SD/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE

HMB-upto para 5
RH- Para-6 to end
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42