Dismissed¶54

Smt. Venkatalakshmamma v. Sri. Venkataswamy

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026RFA/564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RFA No. 564 of 2025; maintainability of first appeal; pecuniary jurisdiction; appeal under Sec.96 CPC; plaint valued Rs.64,00,000/- but plaintiffs' 1/8th share Rs.8,00,000 below Rs.10,00,000/- threshold; appeal lies before District Court; office objection upheld; appeal dismissed as not maintainable; Section 14 Limitation Act exclusion of time benefit; underlying suit O.S. No. 1121/2011 (suit for declaration) dismissed 24.03.2021; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; decided 20 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable; conditional entitlement to exclusion of time spent before this Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act if an appeal is filed within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy; Registry to forthwith return certified copies. ¶54

Smt. Venkatalakshmamma Vs Sri. Venkataswamy — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether RFA No. 564 of 2025 is maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka, given that the plaintiffs' 1/8th share is valued at Rs.8,00,000, which is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, so that an appeal lies before the District Court.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

As the plaintiffs' 1/8th share is valued at Rs.8,00,000, which is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, an appeal lies before the District Court.

¶53

Key takeaways

The office objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.ratio¶54
In the event an appeal is filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the appellants are entitled to exclusion of the time spent before this Court by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.ratio¶56
Registry is directed to forthwith return the certified copies of the judgment after securing photocopies.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 564 of 2025 (High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, decided 20-01-2026), filed under Sec. 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2021 in O.S. No. 1121/2011 (III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (R) District), which had dismissed the suit for declaration. Upholding the Registry's office objection, the Court held that although the plaint was valued at Rs.64,00,000/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' 1/8th share was valued at Rs.8,00,000, which is less than Rs.10,00,000/-; therefore an appeal lies before the District Court, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. In the event an appeal is filed within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy, the appellants are entitled to exclusion of the time spent before this Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Registry directed to forthwith return the certified copies.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3105 RFA No. 564 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA AGED 52 YEARS

¶10

SRI. VENKATESHA S/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA DEAD

¶11

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA

¶12

SMT. NAGAMMA D/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA AGED 55 YEARS

¶13

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

¶14

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA AGED 58 YEARS

¶15

SMT. CHAMUNDI D/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA AGED 49 YEARS

¶16

VENKATESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 26 YEARS

¶17

NAGARAJA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 32 YEARS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:3105 RFA No. 564 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ALL ARE R/AT.NO.149 MADHURANAGARA, 3^RD STAGE MUTSANDRA MAIN ROAD SORAHUNASE EXTENSION VARTHUR, BENGALURU,

¶22

…APPELLANTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

SRI. VENKATASWAMY S/O. LATE VENKATAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT.NO.288, JANATA COLONY BATTARAHALLI K.R.PURAM HOBLI

¶26

BANGALORE-560 049.

¶27

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶28

SMT. DHANAMMA D/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶29

SUBBAMMA D/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶30

NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT. NO.52 LAKSHMANA - MURTHY NAGAR R.M.NAGAR, BANGALORE EAST BANGALORE-560 016.

¶31

SMT. ANNAMMA W/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:3105 RFA No. 564 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

SMT. MARAKKA D/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶36

SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O.VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶37

SRI. LAKSHMAIAH S/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶38

SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶39

SRI. VENKATESH S/O. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶40

NO.5 TO 10 ARE R/AT. NO.288, JANATA COLONY BATTARAHALLI K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 049.

¶41

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

¶42

SRI. M.P.VENKATESH S/O. LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶43

NO.11 AND 12 ARE R/AT MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAGONDI POST ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED IN OS

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:3105 RFA No. 564 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

NO.1121/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.

¶50

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

¶51

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶52

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶53

Though the plaint is valued at Rs.64,00,000/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' 1/8^th share is valued at Rs.8,00,000/which is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, an appeal lies before the District Court.

¶54