Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27312 (KAR)

SMT. RUDRAMMA v. SMT. MANJULA Y H

RFA/1254/2025 · 2025-06-05

Sachin Shankar Magadum

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19217 RFA No. 1254 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1254 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RUDRAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE 2. HANUMESHI S/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE 3. YOGESHI LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUMBALUR VILLAGE, TQ HARIAHAR DIST DAVANAGERE. 4. SMT. KAVITA W/O GADIGESH D/O LATE NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O SINGATAGERI VILLAGE TQ HONNALLI, DIST DAVANAGERE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. HEMANTH .T.C, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19217 RFA No. 1254 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA .Y.H W/O LATE Y. HUCHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 2. ARUNKUMAR S/O LATE Y. HUCHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 3. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O LATE Y. HUCHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 4. PRASANNA KUMAR Y.H. S/O LATE Y. HUCHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUMBALUR VILLAGE TQ HARIHAR, DIST DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.43/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARIHARA, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19217 RFA No. 1254 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT Office has raised objection that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court since the suit is valued at Rs.4,50,000/-. Appeal is dismissed reserving liberty to the appellants to file appeal before the appropriate Appellate Court. It is made clear that the time spent before this Court shall be excluded by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67