- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32974 RFA No. 1627 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1627 OF 2024 (PAR/DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.JAYARAMA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SMT.JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. OMKARA MURTHY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT SHANUMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 159. 2. SMT.MUNDIMAKKA @ VIJAYAMMA W/O SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.002 SAIDHARSHANA APARTMENT NANDANAVANAM LAYOUT Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32974 RFA No. 1627 of 2024 VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE-560 097. 3. SRI. G NARAYANA S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 4. SMT. SOWBHAGYA W/O G. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R3 AND R4 ARE R/AT NO.35 ZURIPET, GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET CUBBONPET, BANGALORE-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R P SOMASHEKARAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 & R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 20.11.2023 PASSED IN OS NO.209/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., RAMANAGARA., DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The valuation of the properties of the subject matter is Rs.18,00,000/- as per the valuation slip. 2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming 2/3rd share in half share in the suit schedule properties. If total value of the properties - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32974 RFA No. 1627 of 2024 is Rs.18,00,000/-, as furnished in the valuation slip, then the plaintiffs’ relief is 2/3rd of the half of Rs.18,00,000/-, which comes to Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, the subject matter of the appeal, insofar as the plaintiffs’ share is concerned, is Rs.6,00,000/-. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to file an appeal before the District Court. 4. The time spent for prosecuting the appeal before this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Office is directed to return the documents by placing photocopy of the appeal papers. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21