Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 71217 (KAR)

SMT PADMAM W/O SIDDARTH v. CHIKKONU

MFA/4771/2024 · 2025-08-07

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30742 MFA No. 4771 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4771 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PADMA W/O SIDDARTH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KONASALE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571432. 2. SMT. SHOBHA W/O GOOLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSEWIFE R/O PANNEDODDI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571432. 3. SMT. SUJATHA W/O LATE SHANKAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O KONASALE VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571432. 4. SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O LATE RAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, MARALIGA POST, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571432. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30742 MFA No. 4771 of 2024 5. SMT. MEENA W/O SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, MARALIGA POST, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571432. 6. POORNIMA W/O PRABHUDEV, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O THORESHETTIHALLY VILLAGE, ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK-571432. 7. SOWMYA W/O KADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O GUDDETHIMMASANDRA VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIKKONU, S/O CHIKKADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. NAGARATHNA, D/O LATE BOREGOWDA, W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O VALAGARAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK – 571 432. 3. RAMU, S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 4. APPAJI, S/O BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30742 MFA No. 4771 of 2024 5. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 6. RAMESH, S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 7. PUTTASWAMY, S/O LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 8. NAGARAJU, S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 9. SHIVARAMU (DEAD BY LR'S) LEELAMMA, W/O LATE SHIVARAMU, HOUSEWIFE, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 10. UMESHA, S/O LATE SHIVARAMU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, HARISHA DEAD BY LR'S 11. SMT. ASHA, W/O LATE HARISHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 12. CHANDAN, S/O LATE HARISHA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 13. GOWRAV, S/O LATE HARISHA, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.13 IS MINOR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30742 MFA No. 4771 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN RESP NO.11. ALL ARE R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK – 571 432. 14. VARALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SATISHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 15. DARSHINI, D/O LATE SATISHA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 16. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 17. JAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 18. VARSHITHA, D/O LATE YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 19. TARUN GOWDA, S/O LATE YOGESH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.18 & 19 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER JAYALASKHMI R – 17. ALL ARE RESIDING AT R/O HARALAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 432. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30742 MFA No. 4771 of 2024 20. SMT. SUKANYA, W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 21. SUMATHI, D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 22. SOUJANYA, D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 23. SHRUTHIKA, D/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.20 TO 23 R/O PANNEDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 432. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2023 PASSED IN MISC.NO.05/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADDUR, JMFC, MADYA DISTRICT, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 9 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30742 MFA No. 4771 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT The suit is valued below Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 2. Liberty is reserved to the appellants to file an appeal before the appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13