Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34980 (KAR)

SMT NAGARAJAMMA v. SRI MADEGOWDA

MFA/1286/2022 · 2026-08-07

Pradeep Singh Yerur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078412022 NC: 2026:KHC:41976 MFA No. 1286 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1286 OF 2022 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT NAGARAJAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAMADEGWODA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SMT SUSHEELAMMA D/O LATE CHOKKAMADEGWODA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. SRI KUMARA S/O LATE CHIKKAMADEGWODA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 4. SMT PRABHAVATHI D/O LATE CHIKKAMADEGWODA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS APPELLANT NO.1 TO 4 ARE THE RESIDENTS OF NIDAGODI VILLAGE, IGGALUR POST VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK 571501 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAJESH M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078412022 NC: 2026:KHC:41976 MFA No. 1286 of 2022 AND: 1. SRI MADEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPEGWODA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. SRI KEMPARAJU S/O LATE KEMPEGWODA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SMT CHIKKAMMA WIFE OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 4. SMT MAHADEVAMMA D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA WIFE OF RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 5. SMT BHAGYAMMA D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, WIFE OF BOREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE ALL RESIDING AT ODUBASAPPANADODDI VILLAGE KODIHALLI POST HALAGUR HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402. 6. SMT SIDDAMMA WIFE OF CHANDRAIAH D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED AOUT 47 YEARS, PADARAHALLI VILLAGE HARISANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI RAMNAGARA TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT 562109 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078412022 NC: 2026:KHC:41976 MFA No. 1286 of 2022 7. SMT SAROJAMMA WIFE OF PUTTALINGEGOWDA, D/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SAVINDIPURA VILLAGE N HALASALLI POST HALAGUR HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571421 8. SRI MADEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKAMADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O NIDAGODI VILLAGE IGGALUR POST, VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK 571501 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7 R8 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(d) OF THE CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT.30.08.2021 PASSED IN MISC.NO.10/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC, CHANNAPATNA, DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED U/O.9 RULE 13 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078412022 NC: 2026:KHC:41976 MFA No. 1286 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal filed before this Court is not maintainable in view of Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Narayanamma -vs- The State of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.17588 of 2024 (GM-RES) c/w Writ Appeal No.200260 of 2025 (GM-RES) dated 08.07.2026, which is affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(c) No.025075/2026 dated 03.08.2026. 2. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer this matter to the concerned District Court for adjudication of the matter from the stage where it is stopped. 3. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The appeal stands disposed of for statistical purposes. ii) Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case to the concerned Principal - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078412022 NC: 2026:KHC:41976 MFA No. 1286 of 2022 District & Sessions Judge, who may assign it to the concerned Appellate Court having jurisdiction. iii) In case there are pending applications, the same also be transferred to be considered by the learned Judge of the concerned Appellate Court, in accordance with law. iv) Both the appellants and the respondents shall appear before the concerned Appellate Court on 01.09.2026 without awaiting any further notice from this Court or from the concerned Appellate Court. v) Interim order passed by this Court shall continue till the application is decided. vi) It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the concerned Appellate Court. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45