- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31358 RFA No. 1042 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: MAASTHI GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT MUDDAIYANAHUNDHI VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571125. …APPELLANT (BY SRI VEERENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S. NATARAJU S/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O ALLANAHALLY VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571125. 2. S.MANI, D/O LATE SOMASHEKARAPPA W/O MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALLANAHALLY VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571125. 3. THE THASILDHAR, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571114. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31358 RFA No. 1042 of 2025 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, MYSURU DISTRICT-570001. 5. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU-56001. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC H.D.KOTE IN O.S.NO.41/2019 DATED 02.01.2024 IN RESPECT OF SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT Office has raised office objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short). 2. Section 19 (1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 with effect from 17.04.1989 reads as under: “19. Appeals from Senior Civil Judge: - Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a Senior Civil Judge in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie,—(1) to the District - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31358 RFA No. 1042 of 2025 Court, when the amount or value of the subject- matter of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed ten lakh rupees;” 3. In the present case, plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court as the value does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-. Consequently, the appeal under Section 96 CPC before this Court is not maintainable. The office objection regarding maintainability is upheld. The appellant is permitted to file a regular appeal before the appropriate District Court. 4. For statistical purpose, the regular first appeal stand disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the appellants to seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in accordance with law. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41