Dismissed¶38

Smt Jayarama v. Smt Lakshmamma

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026RFA/1627/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RFA No. 1627 of 2024 (PAR/DEC); decided 02-07-2026 by Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. Keywords: maintainability of regular first appeal; pecuniary jurisdiction; valuation of subject matter; valuation slip; partition and separate possession suit; OS No.209/2012 Ramanagara; Section 96 CPC; Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 exclusion of time; appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty to file appeal before District Court; plaintiffs' share valued at Rs.6,00,000/-.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court; time spent before the High Court excluded for limitation under Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963; Office directed to return the documents with photocopy of the appeal papers. ¶38

Smt Jayarama Vs Smt Lakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:32974 RFA No. 1627 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1627 OF 2024 (PAR/DEC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.JAYARAMA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶10

SMT.JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. OMKARA MURTHY G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 159.

¶17

SMT.MUNDIMAKKA @ VIJAYAMMA W/O SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.002 SAIDHARSHANA APARTMENT NANDANAVANAM LAYOUT

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32974 RFA No. 1627 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE-560 097.

¶21

SRI. G NARAYANA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

¶22

SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O G. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶23

R3 AND R4 ARE R/AT NO.35 ZURIPET, GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET CUBBONPET, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. R P SOMASHEKARAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4)

¶26

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 20.11.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.209/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., RAMANAGARA., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

The valuation of the properties of the subject matter

¶31

is Rs.18,00,000/- as per the valuation slip.

¶32

The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and

¶33

separate possession, claiming 2/3^rd share in half share in the suit schedule properties. If total value of the properties

¶34

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32974 RFA No. 1627 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

is Rs.18,00,000/-, as furnished in the valuation slip, then the plaintiffs’ relief is 2/3^rd of the half of Rs.18,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, the subject matter of the appeal, insofar as the plaintiffs’ share is concerned, is Rs.6,00,000/-. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

¶37

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not

¶38

maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court.

¶39