- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100413 OF 2025 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: SMT. SANDHYA DODDAMANI W/O. KIRAN DODDAMANI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NO.8*/44/2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, BEHIND CANARA BANK, NARAYANAPUR, VTC DHARWAD-580008. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. BANDI DAYANAND MANOHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T. SRINIVAS SHETTY S/O. T.VISHWANATH SHETTY, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE. 2. SMT. T.LAKSHMI W/O. T.SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 3. T. BADRISH S/O. T.SRINIVAS SHETTY, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE. 4. T. SAGAR S/O. SRINIVAS SHETTY AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE. SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 [RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O.:PLOT NO.46, HOUSE NO.1506, NMDC COLONY, J.P.NAGAR, HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYNAGAR-583201] 5. MOHAMMED ABDUL ROUFF S/O. LATE H.ADBULLAH SAHAB, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 3RD CROSS, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 6. SRI. VENKATA REDDY S/O. LATE M.NARAYAN REDDY, AGE: NOT KNOWN, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O. AT: #992, ANNAPURNA BADAVANE, HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.ASHOK KUMAR GANAPATHY KUPPUSWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/DECREE/ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE IN OS NO.105/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.5 FILED U/O VII 11 OF CPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) The Registry has raised an objection to the effect that this Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present appeal having regard to the fact that the subject matter of the appeal is Rs.10,00,000/- and an appeal is to be filed before the jurisdictional District Court in terms of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act, 1964’), since, the subject matter of the present appeal is confined only to item No.1 of the suit properties, in respect of which the appellant/plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs.10,00,000/- being the alleged 1/4th share of the plaintiff in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. 2. A perusal of the material on order record including the plaint in OS No.105/2024 and the impugned order passed on IA No.8 will indicate that, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in OS No.105/2024, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, seeking partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/4th shares in four items of suit schedule properties by valuing all the properties together at Rs.6,28,00,000/- and the plaintiff's 1/4th share was quantified at Rs.1,56,00,000/-. 3. The valuation slip filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court is as under: VALUATION SLIP FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Suit schedule- II, Item No.1 to 4 Properties Value of the property Mode of valuation to the extent of plaintiff share 1/4th share Valuation arrived at C.F paid Item No.1 Rs.40,00,000 valued at Rs.10,00,000/- Suit for partition C.F. paid U/s 35(2) of K.C.F and S.V.Act. Rs. Item No.2 Rs.28,00,000/ - valued at Rs.6,00,000/- Item No.3 5,00,00,000/- 1,25,00,000/- Item No.4 60,00,000/- 15,00,000/- In total the plaintiff values all of the suit schedule-II and III, Item No.1 to 4 and Item NO.1 to 4 properties Rs.6,28,00,000/- each plaintiff share Rs.1,56,00,000/- fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is herewith paid. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 4. The respondent No.5/defendant No.5 filed the instant application in IA No.8 seeking rejection of the plaint insofar as it relates to item No.1 of the suit schedule properties on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and that there was no cause of action for the said suit. By the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the plaint in part in relation to item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and directed deletion/striking off of the said property from the array of properties. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the plaint insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court by way of the present appeal. 6. As is clear from the aforesaid valuation slip filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court, the market value of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is shown as Rs.40,00,000/- and the alleged 1/4th share of the plaintiff is quantified at Rs.10,00,000/-. It is therefore clear that, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 the valuation column No.2 in the memorandum of appeal purporting to incorporate all the suit schedule properties is clearly erroneous since, the subject matter of the present appeal is restricted to the impugned order passed on IA No.8 which relates only to item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and not in relation to the remaining suit schedule properties. 7. Under these circumstances, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1964, the office objection deserves to be upheld and the present appeal deserves to be disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate/jurisdictional District Court in accordance with law. 8. In the result, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby disposed off on the ground of lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of this Court to entertain and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 adjudicate the present appeal in view of Section 19(1) of the Act, 1964. (ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant/plaintiff to prefer an appeal before the appropriate/jurisdictional District Court within a period of six (6) weeks from today. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of six (6) weeks from today, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. (iii) The Registry is directed to return the requisite papers back to the appellant forthwith to enable him to proceed further in accordance with law. (iv) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB RFA No. 100413 of 2025 (v) Pending interim applications, if any, do not survive and the same are hereby disposed of. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SMM / Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4