- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35005 RFA No. 1410 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1410 OF 2026 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAVINDRA PATIL S/O LATE T. JAYADEVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.278, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 500 094. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHYLAJA W/O D.NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.213/S, 1ST B CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, MYSORE – 500 022. 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA, W/O LATE T.JAYADEVAPPA GOWDA (SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS ON RECORD) 3. SRI. JAGANNATHA PATIL, S/O LATE T.JAYADEVAPPA GOWDA (SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS ON RECORD R-4 AND R-5) Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35005 RFA No. 1410 of 2026 4. SMT. MANJULA, W/O SRI.JAGANNATH PATIL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT HIREJAMBUR VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK. 5. SRI. DEEPAK PATIL, S/O JAGANNATH PATIL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT HIREJAMBUR VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK. 6. SRI. T.VEERENDRA PATIL S/O LATE T.JAYADEVAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.15, 16TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, SANJAYA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 500 094. (SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LRS ON RECORD R-7 AND R-8) 7. SMT. ISHWARYA, W/O LATE T.VEERENDRA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.24/25, 5TH CROSS, 8TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, TATA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 500 092. 8. MEGHA D/O LATE T.VEERENDRA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.24/25, 5TH CROSS, 8TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, TATA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 500 092. 9. SMT. N.V.MAMATHA W/O VISHWANATHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, C/O H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, R/AT 4TH CROSS, DR. LOHIYA ROAD, HASSAN. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35005 RFA No. 1410 of 2026 PRESENT ADDRESS: ANUGRAH, 4TH CROSS, NAVANAGARA, SOWLANGA ROAD, NEAR KUVEMPU NAGAR, DOUBLE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERABHADRASWAMY H P, ADVOCATE FOR C/R IN CP.1045/29)) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED.06.01.2026 PASSED IN OS NO.36/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARPURA, AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT The office objection raised at Sl.No.8 is regarding maintainability of appeal. Since the value of subject matter of the appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-, therefore, office has raised objection at Sl.No.8 regarding maintainability of appeal. 2. Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Court Act, 1964, reads as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35005 RFA No. 1410 of 2026 “19. Appeals from [Senior Civil Judge].- Appeals from the decrees and orders passed by a [Senior Civil Judge] in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, shall, when such appeals are allowed by law, lie.- (1) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit or proceeding [does not exceed ten lakh rupees]; (2) to the High Court, in other cases.” 3. The appeal from the Court of Senior Civil Judge is maintainable before the District Court when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceeding does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-. The question is, what exactly is the meaning of the value of the subject matter of the appeal is Rs.10,00,000/-. It means when value of the subject matter of the appeal is less than or exact Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal lies before the District Court. If it exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-, then the appeal lies before this Court. Therefore, the present appeal lies before the District Court because the valuation of the subject matter of the present appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35005 RFA No. 1410 of 2026 4. Therefore, the office objection raised at Sl.No.8 is upheld. Liberty is reserved to prefer appeal before the District Court. The time spent before this Court in prosecuting this appeal shall be excluded as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable with the observations as discussed above. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14