- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50827 CRP No. 667 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 667 OF 2023 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYAMMA W/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT MARAKADUDODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571428 2. SMT LATHA D/O LATE BOREGOWDA W/O GURU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT KANNA SANRA VILLAGE, MALURU POST, MALURU HOBLI CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160 3. SRI JAGADISHA S/O LATE BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT MARAKADUDODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571428 4. SARITHA D/O LATE BOREGOWDA W/O SRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT CHAKKERE VILLAGE, BYRAPATNA POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50827 CRP No. 667 of 2023 RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562160 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT YASHODAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA JOGI GOWDA W/O LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. SMT NELAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKA JOGI GOWDA W/O SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT MARA KADUDODDI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 3. SRI RAMACHANDRA S/O HANUMANTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. SRI NINGEGOWDA S/O HANUMANTHE GOWDA RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT MADANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 428 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BHASKAR GOWDA N M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS CRP IS FILED U/S. 115 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADDUR, DATED 25.10.2017 IN OS NO. 5/13 AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA DATED 22.03.2018 IN RA NO. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50827 CRP No. 667 of 2023 4/18 AND ALSO DIRECT THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS TO PASS AN JUDGMENT ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Archana Murthy P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Bhaskar Gowda N.M., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on merits of the matter. 2. All that the revision petitioner is seeking is to set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court returning the appeal memo to be presented before the proper Court by acting under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Brief facts in the nutshell for disposal of this petition are as under: 3.1 A suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed which came to be decreed in part. Challenging the decree, an appeal came to be filed before the learned District - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50827 CRP No. 667 of 2023 Judge by the defendant. 3.2. Learned District Judge has returned the appeal memorandum stating that value of the share that has been allotted to the plaintiff and defendant is 1/8th share, which value exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Court and therefore it is for the High Court which has got the jurisdiction and having regard to the fact that the suit was valued in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. 4. Validity of the said order is called in question in this Civil Revision Petition. 5. Smt.Archana Murthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that such an order by learned District Judge is incorrect inasmuch as it is the value shown in the plaint that is decisive while determining the jurisdiction and not the value of the share that has been granted. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order. 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, it is to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50827 CRP No. 667 of 2023 noted that value mentioned in the plaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal inasmuch as if the appeal of the defendant is to be accepted then the whole suit would be dismissed. 8. In such circumstances, Competent Court to entertain the appeal having regard to the valuation of the suit in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs, it is the High Court which has got the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and not the District Court where the pecuniary jurisdiction as per law is only to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs and not beyond that. 9. Therefore, the order of return of the appeal memo by the learned District Judge is just and proper which requires no interference. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (ii) However, the order of the return of the appeal memo being confirmed, the appeal filed before - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50827 CRP No. 667 of 2023 this Court after obtaining the return shall be entertained by this Court without raising the objection with regard to the limitation in view of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23