- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14802 RFA No. 504 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.504 OF 2026 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MACHI W/O. KUPPA D/O. LATE MARLI AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/O. AJJANA ANGADI HITHLU HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 2. SRI SHANKARA S/O. SMT. MACHI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O. AJJANADI HITHLUMANE HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 3. SRI CHANDRA S/O. SMT. MACHI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O. AJJANADI HITHLUMANE HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 4. SRI RATHNAKARA S/O. SMT. MACHI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14802 RFA No. 504 of 2026 R/O. AJJANADI HITHLUMANE HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 5. SRI ANNAPPA S/O. SMT. MACHI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O. AJJANADI HITHLUMANE HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 6. SMT. MANJULA S/O. SMT. MACHI DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O. AJJANADI HITHLUMANE HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 7. SRI AMAR DEEPA S/O. SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O. AJJANADI HITHLUMANE HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MARLA S/O. LATE MARLI AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/O. AJJANA ANGADI HITHLU HORLI HAKLU, KANCHIKAN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14802 RFA No. 504 of 2026 BIJURU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 2. SRI NARAYANA S/O. LATE. MARLI DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS. SMT. SOORU W/O. LATE NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 3. SRI UDAYA NARAYANA DEVADIGA S/O. LATE NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 4. SRI VASANTHA S/O. LATE. NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A MALAGADDE HOUSE, KANCHIKAN BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 5. SRI RAGHAVENDRA S/O. LATE. NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 6. SRI VEERENDRA S/O. LATE NARAYANA DEVADIGA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14802 RFA No. 504 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 7. SRI SANDEEPA S/O. LATE NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 8. SRI SUDARSHANA S/O. LATE NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT 9. SMT. SUSHMITHA S/O. LATE NARAYANA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT. NO.2/101A, MALAGADDE HOUSE KANCHIKAN, BIJOORU VILLAGE AND POST BYNDOOR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.11.2025 PASSED IN OS.NO.30/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14802 RFA No. 504 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT The office has raised an objection that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court, in view of Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1964’). 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, the value of the entire property should be considered for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction and not the share of the plaintiff alone. 3. A reading of Section 19(1) of the Act, 1961 makes it more than apparent that whenever the value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs), an appeal lies before the District Court. 4. The words value of the subject matter of the original suit implies the value of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property, when it is a suit for partition. When it is a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14802 RFA No. 504 of 2026 suit for declaration of title or other reliefs, then the value of the subject matter of the suit would be the whole value. 5. In view of the fact that the suit was valued at a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-, the share of the plaintiff would be less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal before the District Court alone would lie and not before this Court. Hence, office objection is upheld. 6. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Office is directed to return the papers to the appellant for the representation before the District Court. 7. The time consumed in pursuing this appeal before this Court shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to an appeal before the District Court. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17