Dismissed

Sri. Munikrishna v. Venugopal C

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026MFA/6700/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(R) CPC against an interlocutory order in a property suit was dismissed as not maintainable after the court sustained the Registry's objection regarding the valuation slip, with liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings and limitation exclusion.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty to file proceedings before the appropriate forum with Section 14-type exclusion of time spent before this Court.

Sri. Munikrishna Vs Venugopal C — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30330 MFA No. 6700 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6700 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MUNIKRISHNA

¶9

S/O. LATE R. VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.82, 6^TH CROSS AGARA VILLAGE SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE - 560 034.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER

¶11

M. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. SRI MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT RAMAGOVINDAPURA VILLAGE NANDAGUDI POST AND HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI D. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

VENUGOPAL C. S/O. LATE CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶18

C. RAJAGOPAL S/O. LATE CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT42 YEARS.

¶19

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.3 NARAYANASWAMY BUILDING

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30330 MFA No. 6700 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MAHESHWARI TEMPLE STREET DOOPANAHALLI, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 038.

¶23

SMT. VISHALAKSHI W/O. LATE B.R. ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶24

SRI A. PADMANABHAN S/O. LATE B.R.ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶25

SRI A. RAMANUJACHAR S/O. LATE B.R. ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

¶26

SRI A. RAMANATHA S/O. LATE B.R. ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶27

SRI A. KESHAVAMOORTHY S/O. LATE B.R.ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶28

SMT. A. SOUMYA D/O. LATE B.R.ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.

¶29

SMT. A. SUMALATHA D/O. LATE B.R. ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶30

SRI A. SANATHKUMARA S/O. LATE B.R. ANANTHRAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶31

ALL ARE R/AT BHEEMAPUR VILLAGE, SHIVANAPURA PANCHAYATH NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30330 MFA No. 6700 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SRI RAJENDRA S/O. LATE SHARADAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.366 @ 368 SHAKTHINAGAR, PANCHASHEELA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MOODALAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 072.

¶35

SMT. R. VASANTHA W/O. LATE CHANNAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/A. A/25/2, KPWD QUARTERS JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 075.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2022 IN OS.NO.2552/2022( OLD NO.253/2000) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE.

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶40

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶41

Having perused the valuation slip, this Court is of the

¶42

considered view that the objection raised by the Registry deserves to be sustained. Consequently, the appeal is not

¶43

maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:30330 MFA No. 6700 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to file such

¶48

proceedings as may be permissible in law before the appropriate Forum.

¶49

The time spent in agitating the matter before

¶50

this Court, shall be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶51

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶52

CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. Munikrishna v. Venugopal C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Munikrishna v. Venugopal C

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

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. Chandrashekar Ullal

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Hayathulla Islam Madarsa

Sri L Narayanappa Vs Sri Kodandarama

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri N G Mohan

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. Maxim John D Souza

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. P. Narasimha Bhandary