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. 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 written statement inspite of giving opportunity. Hence, the plaintiffs have led the evidence and the Trial Court having considered the material available on record, granted the relief of partition in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property and comes to the conclusion that the settlement deed has not been proved by filing the written statement. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.24/2018 after 12 years 7 months and 14 days. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.24/2018 after 12 years 7 months and 14 days. The First Appellate Court considered the matter, since an application I.A.No.3 was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC as well as application I.A.No.2 was filed for condonation of delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Having considered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative allowing I.A.No.3 and dismissed I.A.No.2 and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. 6. The reasoning assigned for the delay in filing the appeal for a period of 12 years is that the advocate who appeared for their father before the Trial Court has not filed the written statement on behalf of their father and hence the Trial Court was pleased to decree the suit. The appellant No.2 in his contention has stated that his father was neither aware of the consequences nor disclosed about the pendency of the suit to him or other appellants. It is contended that recently in May 2018, they received the notice regarding final decree proceedings from the Trial Court and then his counsel informed them about the suit and after collecting the copy of the judgment and decree, filed the present appeal. 7. The Appellate Court also secured the records of the Trial Court and in paragraph No.26 of the judgment taken note of that before the Trial Court, defendant No.3 appeared through counsel Sri MMS on 17.10.2005 and the Trial Court adjourned the case to file the written statement. The defendant No.3 was unrepresented on 16.11.2005. Noting that written statement was not filed, the Trial Court adjourned the case to 15.12.2005 and thereafter, the plaintiffs’ evidence was recorded. In view of the non-filing of the written statement and after recording the evidence of P.W.1, the Trial Court considered the matter on merits. The Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, particularly O.S.No.108/2005, comes to the conclusion that the father of these appellants was represented through counsel and remained unrepresented and not filed the statement or objections. In view of the non-filing of the written statement and after recording the evidence of P.W.1, the Trial Court considered the matter on merits. The Appellate Court having considered the material available on record, particularly O.S.No.108/2005, comes to the conclusion that the father of these appellants was represented through counsel and remained unrepresented and not filed the statement or objections. The First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the very contention of the appellants that they were not having the knowledge about the suit and consequence of the suit cannot be accepted when there is a delay of 12 years 7 months and 14 days and the same is not properly explained and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants before this Court would vehemently contend that both the Courts have committed an error in granting the relief of partition and dismissed the appeal, inspite of there was a settlement deed in favour of their father. The learned counsel also contend that the plaintiffs were not in joint constructive possession of the schedule property along with the defendants and the same has not been considered by the Trial Court. Hence, the learned counsel would contend that the Courts below have committed an error in granting the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule property and also committed an error in dismissing the appeal considering the delay of 12 years 7 months and 14 days and hence this Court has to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also on perusal of the material available on record, it is not in dispute that in the original suit the appellants’ father appeared through an advocate and admittedly, not filed the written statement and not contested the matter and the suit was disposed of in the year 2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed in 2018 and there was a delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days in filing the appeal. It is not the case of the appellants that as on the date of disposal of the suit, the father was not alive. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed in 2018 and there was a delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days in filing the appeal. It is not the case of the appellants that as on the date of disposal of the suit, the father was not alive. It is only contended that the father was not having the knowledge about the consequence of the suit and the counsel also did not inform the same. The said contention cannot be a ground to condone the delay when there is an inordinate delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days in filing the appeal and the delay has not been properly explained. The allegation is made against the counsel and the appellants’ father. Even the appellants did not verify with the advocate who was engaged before the Trial Court or with the father. The suit was filed in 2005 and the same was decreed on 23.01.2006 and the appeal was filed in 2018 after lapse of 12 years. The delay of 12 years was not on the health ground, but it was contended that they were not having the knowledge and the consequence of the decree. When the counsel was engaged in the suit, they cannot contend that the dismissal of the suit was not informed and nothing is placed on record that they also made efforts before the Trial Court to enquire with regard to the status of case in O.S.No.108/2005. When such being the case, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal and frame substantial question of law. The Appellate Court rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 12 years 7 months 14 days, since the same is not explained properly and sufficient cause is not shown. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER : The appeal is dismissed.