Dismissed

Kumaraswamy v. H S Puttamadappa

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2022RFA/644/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Appeal examines the maintainability of an appeal against a preliminary decree concerning a suit for partition. The Court held the appeal not maintainable in this High Court due to pecuniary limitations but granted liberty to approach the competent Court within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Office directed to return the certified copy of the judgment and decree under challenge after securing a photocopy.

Kumaraswamy Vs H S Puttamadappa — Partition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

R.F.A NO.644 OF 2022(PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KUMARASWAMY S/O H.S.PUTTAMADAPPA AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK-571 129 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.B SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

H S PUTTAMADAPPA S/O LATE KOTHAYANAHUNDI SIDDAPPA AGED 84 YEARS

¶13

P.RAJU S/O H.S.PUTTAMADAPPA AGED 41 YEARS

¶14

VEERABADRASWAMY S/O H.S.PUTTAMADAPPA AGED 39 YEARS

¶15

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK-571 129 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶17

VIMALAMMA D/O H.S.PUTTAMADAPPA AGED 51 YEARS, W/O A.R.SANNAPPA R/AT AKALA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571 314 MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶18

NAGAMMA W/O H.S.PUTTAMADAPPA AGED 71 YEARS

¶19

MUDDUMADAPPA S/O LATE KONTHYANAHUNDI SIDDAPPA AGED 86 YEARS

¶20

NO.5 AND 6 R/AT HORALAVADI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI-571 129 NANJANAGUD TALUK.

¶21

A.R.SANNAPPA S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT AKALA VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK-571 314 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.12.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO.68/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANJANGUD, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶24

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The captioned appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning

¶28

the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.70/2013.

¶29

On perusal of the valuation slip it is forthcoming that the subject-matter of the suit was valued at Rs.32,35,000/-. The plaintiff's 1/5^th share is valued at Rs.6,47,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal would not lie before this Court in terms of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act.

¶30

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not

¶31

maintainable reserving liberty to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the competent Court. Since the present appeal is filed in time, the appellant is entitled for the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, in the event the appellant files a appeal before the competent Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

¶33

4. Since the appeal is not maintainable, Office is

¶34

directed to return the certified copy of the judgment and decree under challenge after securing photo copy of the same.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

*alb/-

Kumaraswamy v. H S Puttamadappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaraswamy v. H S Puttamadappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri C N Vedanth Vs Sri C N Keshava Murthy

The Regional Manager Vs Dakshyani

M/S Anglo French Drugs and Industries Ltd. Vs M/S Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

Sri S Venkatesh Vs Sri Khodandarama

Smt. M Leelavathi Vs Smt. Yeshodamma

Sri. Mariyappa Vs Sri Lakshminarayana v