Dismissed¶38

Smt D Muniyamma v. Smt Rathnamma

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026RFA/177/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; rejection of plaint; Order 7 Rule 11(a)(b)(d) CPC; Section 96 CPC appeal; pecuniary jurisdiction valuation Rs. 30,00,000/- vs plaintiff's share Rs. 7,50,000/-; appellate forum - District Court not High Court; Office objection upheld; RFA dismissed as not maintainable; Section 14 Limitation Act time exclusion; Karnataka HC Bengaluru; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; 11-02-2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; liberty reserved to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the District Court, with Section 14 Limitation Act benefit if filed within two weeks of receipt of certified copy; Registry directed to return certified copies after securing photocopies. ¶38

Smt D Muniyamma Vs Smt Rathnamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the present RFA against the order partly allowing rejection of plaint is maintainable before the High Court, or whether, the subject matter of the partition suit being the plaintiff's share, the appeal lies before the District Court.

¶37

Court's answer

The subject matter of the partition suit being the plaintiff's legitimate share (valued at Rs.7,50,000/- against total suit valuation of Rs.30,00,000/-), the appeal would lie before the District Court; accordingly the Office objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the District Court; if such appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the time spent in the present appeal shall be excluded by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, 11 February 2026 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum) - RFA No. 177 of 2026 (PAR): Regular First Appeal under S. 96 CPC against the order dated 15.11.2025 of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, partly allowing IA No. 2 filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a), (b) and (d) CPC for rejection of plaint in partition suit OS No. 820/219 (as printed). Held: as the suit's subject matter is the plaintiff's legitimate share - the whole suit being valued at Rs. 30,00,000/- and the plaintiff's share at Rs. 7,50,000/- - the appeal would lie before the District Court; the Office objection was upheld and the appeal dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty was reserved to the appellant to appeal before the District Court; if filed within two weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the time spent in this appeal is to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Registry was directed to return certified copies after securing photocopies.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8485 RFA No. 177 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2026 (PAR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. D. MUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE. K. DONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. GORAMADAGU VILLAGE KOTHNUR POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST - 562 105.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .A.C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. D. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. GANGAIAH S/O. LATE. D. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶15

SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. D. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶16

SRI. R. RAMESH KUMAR S/O. LATE. D. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶17

SRI. D. VENKATESH S/O. LATE. DONNAPPA

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:8485 RFA No. 177 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶22

SRI. V. VINOD S/O. D. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶23

SRI. V. NAGARAJ S/O. D. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶24

THE R1 TO R7 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO. 23, RAJEEVANAGARA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 135.

¶25

SMT. NAGARATHANA W/O. H. V. PURRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT. NANJEGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 424.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2025, PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN OS NO. 820/219, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA NO. 2 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a), (b) AND (d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal arises out of a partition suit. The suit

¶32

property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is valued

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:8485 RFA No. 177 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

at Rs.30,00,000/- while plaintiff's legitimate share is valued at Rs.7,50,000/-. It is the plaintiff's share which is

¶37

the subject matter of the partition suit. Therefore, appeal would lie before the District Court. Hence, Office objection is upheld.

¶38

Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not

¶39

maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to appellant to

¶40

prefer an appeal before the District Court.

¶41

In the event, an appeal is filed within two

¶42

weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the time spent in this appeal shall be excluded by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶43

Registry is directed to return certified copies after securing photocopies of the same.

¶44

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶45

ALB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Smt D Muniyamma v. Smt Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt D Muniyamma v. Smt Rathnamma

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

Smt. Haseena Banu @ Hseena Begum Vs Smt. Asmathunnisa

Sri Govindaraju K H Vs Sri H Giriyanna

Sri. P. Kishore Vs the Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri K N Ramesh Vs Sri K N Druvakumar S/O Late K Narasimhaiah

Sri. Shridhar Rao Bavale Vs Sri Mahadev Rao Bavale

Smt Kamalamma Vs Mohan Kumar B S