BASETTAIAH. M.V Vs. M.V. VEERABHADRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 (the plaintiffs) is absent. Perused the appeal papers, including the different Memos filed by the appellants and the respondents.

(2.) The plaintiff, Sri M.V.Veerabhadraiah (now represented by the respondent Nos.1 to 3) filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.118/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) & JMFC, Ramanagaram (for short, 'the trial Court'), and they included two sets of immovable properties; one set of such properties is described as agricultural lands and another set of properties is described as residential properties. Sri. Basettaiah. M.V, Sri. M.V.Shivarudraiah, Sri. Shivananda and Sri. Rajashekaraiah, Smt.Deveeramma (the original defendants now represented by the appellants and respondent Nos.4 to 6) did not contest the suit. The legal representatives of the plaintiff (who had come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff) examined two witnesses on their behalf. The wife of the deceased plaintiff is examined herself as PW.1 and her son, plaintiff- 1(b) [the respondent No.1] is examined himself as PW.2. The plaintiffs marked revenue records of different suit schedule properties as Exhibits. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that there was nothing on record to disbelieve the plaintiffs' assurance that the suit schedule properties were their ancestral properties which had to be partitioned inter se parties.

(3.) The appellants viz., Sri Basettaiah.M.V and Shivarudraiah.M.V. (the defendant Nos.1 and 2) filed the first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in R.A.No.18/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court at Ramanagaram (for short, the 'appellate Court'). However, their appeal was belated. As such, they filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There was delay of four years in filing the appeal. The appellants contended that there was some confusion about the initiation of the suit before the trial Court because another suit was filed against them in O.S.No.147/1991 by the plaintiff, Sri M.V.Veerabhadraiah. They were not aware of the suit and only when they were served with notice of the final decree, the application was filed by the plaintiff. The appellants contended that they are from rural background and they lack knowledge of legal proceedings, and as such, there was delay in filing the appeal. The appellate Court by the impugned judgment rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequentially the appeal.