Dismissed

Mr.K.T.Belliappa @ Roshan v. Mr.K.T. Ganapathy @ Robin

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026RFA/2772/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Regular First Appeal No. 2772 of 2025, the High Court at Bengaluru, dismissed the appeal held not maintainable under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, as the defendant failed to contest the trial court's valuation of the plaintiff's share.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for lack of maintainability; liberty reserved to file appeal in District Court; time consumed in this appeal to be deducted from limitation period.

Mr.K.T.Belliappa @ Roshan Vs Mr.K.T. Ganapathy @ Robin — Partition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22305 RFA No. 2772 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶8

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2772 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR. K.T.BELLIAPPA @ ROSHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE K.M. THIMMAAIAH, R/ATT KATTY ESATE, KOOTTOLI VILLAGE, K. BOIKERI POST, VIRAJPETT TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MR.K.T. GANAPATHY @ ROBIN S/O LATE K.M. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, C/O K.T. BOJAMMA, 140, KOTTOLI ROAD, KATTY ESTATE, KOTTOLI VILLAGE, K.BOIKERI POST, VIRAJPET TALUK

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS RFA FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2025, PASSED IN OS NO.47/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:22305 RFA No. 2772 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This is an appeal filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Virajpet in O.S.No.47/2022.

¶25

Office has raised an objection that the suit was valued by the plaintiff at a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and the value of the share of the plaintiff in the suit property was Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the First Appeal before this Court is not maintainable in way of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964.

¶26

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the value of the suit properties is more than Rs.50,00,000/and therefore, an appeal before this Court is maintainable.

¶27

However, a perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court would show that the defendant did not contest the valuation of the suit as valued by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant cannot now contend that the value of the suit properties was more than Rs.20,00,000/-. If that be

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22305 RFA No. 2772 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

so, this appeal also has to be valued at a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, which is the value of the share of the defendant in the suit properties. Therefore, in view of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Consequently, office objection regarding maintainability is upheld.

¶31

This appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶32

However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate Appellate Court.

¶33

Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree after retaining a photocopy. The time consumed in pursuing this appeal shall be deducted while calculating limitation applicable to an appeal before the District Court.

¶34

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶35

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Mr.K.T.Belliappa @ Roshan v. Mr.K.T. Ganapathy @ Robin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.T.Belliappa @ Roshan v. Mr.K.T. Ganapathy @ Robin

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

Dr Sudeep Thomas Vs Hoysala Projects Private Limited

Venkatesh Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Sakregowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Shri Chowda Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmayya K M Vs Sri Aashica Amrith M

Sri. Mahesh Kuamar N S, Vs Sri. Ramesha