Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 90668 (KAR)

RANJITHA v. MANCHAIAH

RFA/1648/2025 · 2025-07-17

Sachin Shankar Magadum

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27026 RFA No. 1648 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. RANJITHA D/O MADESHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN MOTHER, THRIVENI W/O MADESHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS KANTEERAVA STUDIO, 23RD CROSS 3RD MAIN, BANGALORE. (AS PER THE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MINOR GUARDIAN DISCHARGED) RANJITHA D/O MADESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/O RAILWAY STATION ROAD GUBBI-572216. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RUDRESH .H.B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANCHAIAH S/O LINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 2. GOWRAMMA W/O MANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27026 RFA No. 1648 of 2025 3. MADESHA S/O MANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. HANUMANTHAIAH @ HANUMANTHARAJ S/O MANCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 5. PREMA D/O MANCHAIAH W/O LATE GOVINDARAJ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R1 TO R5 ARE ALL R/AT VANNAVALLI, KASABA HOBLI GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216. 6. THANUSHREE D/O MADESHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 7. MANYA D/O MADESHA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R6 AND R7 ARE R/AT VANNAVALLI, KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27.09.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.6/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, GUBBI, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27026 RFA No. 1648 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The plaintiff's share was valued at Rs.5,06,250/-. Therefore, the appeal before this Court is not maintainable. Accordingly, office objection is upheld. 2. Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to appellant to file an appeal before the appellate Court. In the event, appeal is filed within four weeks, appellant is entitled for the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. Registry to return the certified copies of the judgment and decree after securing photocopies of the same. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47