Dismissed¶59

Anitha K S v. K Ravindra

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026RFA/86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, RFA No.86 of 2025 (PAR), decided 23.01.2026. Appeal against partition decree in OS No.16/2020 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, dated 22.08.2024) dismissed as not maintainable on valuation ground (Rs.7,38,889/-); Section 19(1) Karnataka Civil Courts Act; Section 96 CPC; Section 14 Limitation Act 1963 exclusion of time; return of certified copies; appellants Anitha K.S and others vs K.Ravindra and others.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to approach the appropriate appellate forum; Registry directed to return certified copies to the appellant retaining photocopies for record; benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 if the appeal is filed within four weeks of receipt of certified copy. ¶59

Anitha K S Vs K Ravindra — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2024 in OS No.16/2020 is maintainable before the High Court of Karnataka, having regard to the valuation of the plaintiff's share and the mandate of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act.

¶58

Court's answer

Since the plaintiff's 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties is valued at Rs.7,38,889/- for pecuniary jurisdiction, the competent appellate forum under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act is the District Court.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

The office objection relating to maintainability of the appeal before the High Court is well-founded and is upheld.

¶58

Key takeaways

The present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the appellant to approach the appropriate appellate forum in accordance with law.ratio¶59
If the appeal is presented before the competent Court within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, excluding time spent prosecuting the appeal before this Court.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RFA No. 86 of 2025 (PAR) — Maintainability. The plaintiff's 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties was valued at Rs.7,38,889/- for pecuniary jurisdiction; under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act the competent appellate forum against the decree in OS No.16/2020 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sullia, decreeing partition) is the District Court. Office objection upheld; appeal dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to approach the appropriate forum; Section 14 Limitation Act benefit granted if appeal filed within four weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4051 RFA No. 86 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.86 OF 2025 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ANITHA K.S

¶10

W/O LATE K SHESHAPPA POOJARY

¶11

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶12

AMOOLYA K.S

¶13

D/O LATE SHESHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶14

SHRUDDA

¶15

D/O LATE SHESHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

ALL OF THE ABOVE

RESIDING AT

KUNHAMOOLE HOUSE

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶20

AIVERNADU VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574239

¶21

…APPELLANTS

¶22

(BY SRI. NAGESHA B S, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

K.RAVINDRA

¶25

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶26

R/AT KUNHAMOOLE HOUSE

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:4051 RFA No. 86 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

AIVARNADU VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574239

¶31

NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT SARASWATHI NILAYA K.H.B VIDYANAGAR MADIKERI TOWN MADIKERI TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571201

¶32

K.KESHAVA POOJARY S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT DUGGALADKA HOUSE SULLIA KASABA VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALU D.K.DISTRICT - 574239

¶33

K.RAMESH

¶34

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A LAKSHMI ARCADE DEEPA COMPLEX NEKKILADY VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT - 574325

¶35

K.MOHAN CHANDRA S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 45 YARS R/AT ASUTHU NIVAS NEAR AMBIKA P.U.COLLEGE NELLIKATTE PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRICT 574201

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:4051 RFA No. 86 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

5. K.LALITHA

¶40

W/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT AIVARNADU HOUSE AIVARNADU VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574239

¶41

B.C.KUSUMA

¶42

D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY

¶43

W/O B.K. CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT AMMATHI VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT 571218

¶44

K.SUNITAH D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY W/O JANARDHANA

¶45

AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS

¶46

R/AT URIMAJALU HOUSE IDKIDU VILLAGE AND POST BANTWALA TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574211

¶47

K.LINGAMMA @ SARASWATHI W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/AT KUNHAMOOLE HOUSE AIVARNADU VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574239

¶48

…RESPONDENTS

¶49

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.08.2024 PASSED IN

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:4051 RFA No. 86 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

OS.NO.16/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SULLIA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND ETC.

¶54

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

¶55

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶56

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶57

The plaintiff’s 1/9^th share in the suit schedule properties, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, is valued at Rs.7,38,889/-. In view of such valuation and having regard to the mandate of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, the competent appellate forum is the District Court.

¶58

In that view of the matter, the office objection relating to maintainability is well-founded and deserves to be upheld.

¶59

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate appellate forum in accordance with law.

¶60

The Registry is directed to forthwith return the certified copies to the appellant after retaining photocopies thereof for record.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:4051 RFA No. 86 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

It is further made clear that, if the appeal is presented before the competent Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the time spent in prosecuting the appeal before this Court shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation.

¶65

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶66

NBM

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Anitha K S v. K Ravindra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha K S v. K Ravindra

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. Rukkamma Vs Smt. Nanjamma

Smt Divya Krupa M R Vs M/S S K Enterprises

Sri S Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

N.R.Manjunatha Vs Manjunatha R.V.

M/S Unique Detective and Security Services Private Limited Vs Sri Shivakumar N

M/S Wipro Enterprises Private Limited Vs Mr Ratnesh Pandey