Sri Junjapap K S Vs K S Munihanumaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Junjapap K S Vs K S Munihanumaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court; time spent prosecuting the appeal before the High Court excluded for limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; Registry directed to return all original copies to the appellant/counsel.

Issue for consideration

Whether the regular first appeal is maintainable before the High Court, given the submission that the value of the property is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and the appeal therefore lies before the District Court.

Court's answer

The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before the High Court, the Court acting on the position that the value of the property being less than Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal lies before the District Court.

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court.

Key takeaways

The time spent prosecuting the appeal before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.ratio¶50
The Registry is directed to return all the original copies to the appellant/counsel for the appellant.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular First Appeal under S.96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2026 in OS No.982/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dismissing a suit for partition and injunction. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the value of the property is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and that the appeal therefore lies before the District Court, making it not maintainable before the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court; the time spent prosecuting the appeal before the High Court was excluded for limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; and the Registry was directed to return all original copies to the appellant/counsel.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26729 RFA No. 956 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 956 OF 2026 (PAR/INJ)

BETWEEN:

SRI. JUNJAPAP K.S, S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST BENGALURU - 560 043.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1(A). K.M. KALAPPA

S/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

1(B). K.M. KEMPALAKKAMMA

D/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH W/O RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

1(C). K.M. MUDDAPPA S/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26729 RFA No. 956 of 2026

HC-KAR

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

1(D). K.M. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

1(E). K.M. VASUDEVAMURTHY S/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

1(F). K.M. PATALAPPA S/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

1(G). K.M. KANAKARAJ S/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

LRS 1(A) TO 1(G) ARE R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

1(H). K.M. PARVATHAMMA D/O LATE K.S. MUNIHANUMAIAH W/O B.V. LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. R/AT BILISHIVALE VILLAGE, DODDAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

SMT. MUDDAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26729 RFA No. 956 of 2026

HC-KAR

2(A). RAMANJINAPPA

S/O LATE K.C.PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT KALKERE VILLAGE, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS. R/AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

4. SUBRAYAPPA

S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/AT HORAMAVU AGARA, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1(C TO G))

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2026 PASSED IN OS NO.982/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND INJUNCTION.

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

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26729 RFA No. 956 of 2026

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the value of the property is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal lies before the District Court. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court.

The time spent for prosecuting the appeal before

this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Registry is directed to return all the original copies to the appellant/counsel for the appellant.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

rv, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34