- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25667 WP No. 8786 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8786 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE C.T.VENKATANNAA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE C.T.VENKATANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 3. SMT. PADMAMMA D/O LATE C.T.VENKATANNA W/O JAYANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MARANAHALLI VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK – 572 117 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 4. SMT. YASHODAMMA D/O LATE C.T.VENKATANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1, 2 AND 4 ARE R/AT BEHIND HEMAVATHI QUARTERS NITTUR ROAD, CHELUR, GUBBI TALUK TUMKURU DISTRICT – 572 117. 5. SMT. MEENAKSHI Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25667 WP No. 8786 of 2025 D/O LATE C.T.VENKATANNA W/O C.B.ANANADA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KACCHENAHALLI VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI KEMPAMMA ALIAS V.KEMPAVVA D/O LATE VENKATANNA ALIAS VENKATAPPA W/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 2. SMT. MAHESH S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SRI LOKESH S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SRI GANGADHAR S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT ENNEKATTE GRAMA CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25667 WP No. 8786 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE OFFICE OBJECTION DATED 10-01-2025 RAISED BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN FR-RA NO. 4/2025, REGARDING MAINTAINABILITY OF THE APPEAL, RAISED IN THE ORDER SHEET VIDE ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - defendants No.1 to 5 are at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 10.01.2025 and has sought a consequential direction to register regular RA number by considering the appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) and decide the appeal on its merit. 2. Heard Shri V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Sandesh Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The plaintiffs institutes a suit in O.S.No.92/2020 seeking partition and separate possession claiming 1/2 share of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule properties were - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25667 WP No. 8786 of 2025 two in number, one Sy.No.192/1 and Sy.No.34/1 of Cheluru village, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District. The concerned Court decreed the suit on 11.11.2024 allotting 1/6th share to the first plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 5 filed regular appeal against the decree dated 11.11.2024 challenging the 1/6th share allotted to the first plaintiff. The Appellate Court is said to have raised objection with regard to peculiar jurisdiction and has not assigned the regular RA number. The plaintiff valued the suit schedule property at Rs.32,51,250/- and the first plaintiff's share is Rs.5,41,875/-, despite the defendants' counsel relying on a judgment that the valuation of 1/6th share is what is to be considered, the appeal is not registered. It is therefore, the petitioners - defendants are before this Court in the subject petition. 4. The order sheet maintained before the concerned Court is as follows: "Appellants absent. Learned counsel for the appellants prays time. For compliance of office objection by 20.01.2025. Appellants absent. Learned counsel for the appellants prays time. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25667 WP No. 8786 of 2025 For compliance of office objection by 01.02.2025. Appellants absent. Learned counsel for the appellants prays time. For compliance of office objection finally by 14.02.2025. Learned counsel for the appellants prays time. For compliance of office objection by 25.02.2025. Learned counsel for the appellants prays time. For compliance of office objection by 10.03.2025." It is clearly indicative of the fact that a regular RA number is not assigned on the score that there is a discrepancy with regard to the Court fee. 5. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents would submit that the concerned Court has erred in not assigning a regular RA number as what is called in question before it is 1/6th share allotted to the first plaintiff. Therefore, the Court fee that is paid is in accordance with law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25667 WP No. 8786 of 2025 6. In the light of the said submission, the act of the concerned Court in not registering a regular appeal is on the face of it unsustainable. Therefore, the concerned Court shall now after considering the law as laid down by this Court shall assign a regular number to the appeal and regulate its procedure, thereafter. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents in unison, the objection dated 10.01.2025 stands quashed. A direction is issued to the concerned Court to register a regular appeal said to have been filed under Order XLI Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the CPC. Ordered accordingly. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:SS