- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14803 RFA No. 520 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.520 OF 2026 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O. MARADI RANGAIAH @ RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. MANJUNATH S/O. MARADI RANGAIAH @ RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 107 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. ANITHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIKKARANGAMMA @ RANGAMMA W/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS 2. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O. LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14803 RFA No. 520 of 2026 3. GANGAMMA D/O. LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 4. DODDARANGAMMA D/O. LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 5. LOKAMMA D/O. LATE RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 6. MARADI RANGAIAH @ RANGASWAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 107 …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED IN O.S.NO.484/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, TUMAKURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT The office has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the appeal in view of Section 19(1) of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14803 RFA No. 520 of 2026 Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1964'). 2. It is stated in the valuation slip filed before the trial Court that the suit property was valued at Rs.60,00,000/- and the share of the plaintiff was 1/6th in the suit property. Therefore, the valuation of the share of the plaintiff was Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. It is now contended that the appellant had approached the District Court and that the District Court had directed the appellant to approach this Court. Since the language in Section 19(1) of the Act, 1964 is clear and says that if the value of the subject matter of the original suit or other proceeding does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-, then the appeal shall lie before the District Court, the appeal has to be filed before the District Court and not before this Court. Hence, office objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Office is directed to return the papers to the learned counsel for the appellant, who shall represent the same before the appropriate Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14803 RFA No. 520 of 2026 4. The time consumed in pursuing this appeal 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.: 18