Disposed¶39

Maasthi Gowda v. S. Nataraju

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2025RFA/1042/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, RFA No. 1042 of 2025 (DEC/INJ), Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 13.08.2025: RFA against Senior Civil Judge & JMFC H.D. Kote decree in O.S. No. 41/2019 dated 02.01.2024 held not maintainable under Section 96 CPC because suit valued at Rs. 8,00,000/- (below Rs. 10,00,000/- ceiling in Section 19(1) Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964); appeal disposed of; liberty to claim Section 14 Limitation Act benefit before District Court. Keywords: maintainability, pecuniary jurisdiction, valuation, office objection, Section 96 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to file a regular appeal before the appropriate District Court; liberty reserved to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ¶39

Maasthi Gowda Vs S. Nataraju — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellant permitted to file a regular appeal before the appropriate District Court; liberty reserved to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC is maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka when the suit out of which it arises was valued at Rs.8,00,000/-, i.e., not exceeding the ten-lakh rupee ceiling in Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, under which such appeals lie to the District Court.

¶30

Court's answer

Since the plaintiff valued the suit for jurisdiction at Rs.8,00,000/-, a value not exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-, appeals from the Senior Civil Judge's decree lie to the District Court under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, and therefore this appeal under Section 96 CPC is not maintainable before the High Court.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The office objection regarding maintainability is upheld, and the appellant is permitted to file a regular appeal before the appropriate District Court; the regular first appeal stands disposed of for statistical purposes, with liberty reserved to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintainability of appeal - Regular First Appeal under Section 96 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka - suit valued by plaintiff at Rs.8,00,000/- for jurisdiction - under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, appeals from decrees of a Senior Civil Judge where the value of the subject-matter does not exceed ten lakh rupees lie to the District Court - office objection regarding maintainability upheld - appeal under Section 96 CPC held not maintainable before the High Court - appellant permitted to file a regular appeal before the appropriate District Court - regular first appeal disposed of for statistical purposes - liberty reserved to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Single Judge, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha, 13.08.2025).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:31358 RFA No. 1042 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAASTHI GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MUDDAIYANAHUNDHI VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571125.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

S. NATARAJU

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

S/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O ALLANAHALLY VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571125.

¶16

S.MANI, D/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALLANAHALLY VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571125.

¶17

THE THASILDHAR, H.D.KOTE TALUK,

¶18

MYSURU DISTRICT-571114.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:31358 RFA No. 1042 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, MYSURU DISTRICT-570001.

¶23

THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU-56001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC H.D.KOTE IN O.S.NO.41/2019 DATED 02.01.2024 IN RESPECT OF SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

Office has raised office objection regarding

¶30

maintainability of the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short).

¶31

Section 19 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act,

¶32

1964 with effect from 17.04.1989 reads as under:

¶33

“19. Appeals from Senior Civil Judge: -

¶34

Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a Senior Civil Judge in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie,—(1) to the District

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31358 RFA No. 1042 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Court, when the amount or value of the subjectmatter of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed ten lakh rupees;”

¶38

In the present case, plaintiff valued the suit for

¶39

the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court as the value does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-. Consequently, the appeal under Section 96 CPC before this Court is not maintainable. The office objection regarding maintainability is upheld. The appellant is permitted to file a regular appeal before the appropriate District Court.

¶40

For statistical purpose, the regular first appeal stand disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the appellants to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶43

MBM

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Maasthi Gowda v. S. Nataraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maasthi Gowda v. S. Nataraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmappa P Vs Sri C T Renu Kumar

Raparla Lakshmi Bharathi Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt Nagashree Vs Sri Dileep R

Smt. Chandana C Vs Sri. Shivakumar B D

Abdul Saleem Vs Noor Mohammed

M/S Wall Street Lounge Bar Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Pleasant Valley Development Pvt. Ltd.