Smt. Sakamma Vs Maruvamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Sakamma Vs Maruvamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law; Registry directed to return certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree to the appellant; if a fresh appeal is filed before the competent forum within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order, the appellant shall be entitled to exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the present appeal, by extension of the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular First Appeal is maintainable, in view of the office objection, where the valuation was confined to the plaintiff's 1/7th share (Rs.6,00,000/-) rather than the value of the entire suit schedule properties (Rs.42,00,000/-).

Court's answer

In a suit for partition, only the share claimed by the plaintiff constitutes the subject-matter of the suit, and not the value of the entire joint family property; accordingly, the valuation for the purpose of maintainability of the appeal must necessarily be confined to the value of the plaintiff's share alone.

Ratio / Principle

Accepting the office objection, this Court holds that the appeal, as presented, is not maintainable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition suit O.S.No.631/2019 (Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru): plaint rejected pursuant to I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC by order dated 26.08.2022; appellant sought recourse through RFA No.72 of 2026 under Section 96 CPC. The Court held that in a suit for partition only the share claimed by the plaintiff constitutes the subject-matter of the suit, and not the value of the entire joint family property; since the valuation was confined to the plaintiff's 1/7th share (Rs.6,00,000/-) against a total property valuation of Rs.42,00,000/-, the Court accepted the office objection and held the appeal, as presented, not maintainable, dismissing it with liberty to work out the remedy in accordance with law. The Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree, and the appellant was extended the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (exclusion of time spent in this appeal) if a fresh appeal is filed before the competent forum within four weeks.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2026 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SAKAMMA W/O MANJU D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.114, RAMABAI NAGARA ROAD MUNISWAMYNAGARA MYSURU-570008.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KASHINATH .J.D, ADVOCATE)

AND:

MARUVAMMA

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

W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

CHIKKENNAMMA W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

SIDDAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

GEETHA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026

HC-KAR

SAVITHA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

SIDDAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

GOWRAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

NAGAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE BUNDIKENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

NAVEENA

S/O LATE BUNDIKENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

KIRAN

S/O LATE BUNDIKENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

R1 To R11 ARE RESIDING AT

K. SALUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570008.

P. BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O LATE PADMANABHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.690, 1^ST CROSS, LIC COLONY SRIRAMPURA 2^ND STAGE MYSURU-570008.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026

HC-KAR

THE SECRETAR JNANAGANGA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.365, 10^TH MAIN, 'C' BLOCK 1^ST STAGE, J.P.NAGARA MYSURU-570008.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.631/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The plaintiff’s 1/7^th share in the suit schedule properties has been valued at Rs.6,00,000/-, whereas the total valuation of the entire suit schedule properties is Rs.42,00,000/-. It is a settled and trite principle of law that in a suit for partition, only the share claimed by the plaintiff constitutes the subject-matter of the suit, and not

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026

HC-KAR

the value of the entire joint family property. The valuation, for the purpose of maintainability of the appeal, must therefore necessarily be confined to the value of the plaintiff’s share alone.

In the light of the above settled position, this Court finds merit in the office objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. Accepting the said objection, this Court holds that the appeal, as presented, is not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law.

The Registry is directed to forthwith return the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree to the appellant after retaining photocopies of the same for the record of this Court.

In the event of the appellant filing a fresh appeal before the competent forum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026

HC-KAR

order, the appellant shall be entitled to exclusion of the

time spent in prosecuting the present appeal before this Court, by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

CA

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65