- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8484 RFA No. 54 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2025 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHRIDHAR RAO BAVALE S/O LATE DHARMA RAO BAVALE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O NO. 33, SEVEN HILLS EXATRANCY, PLOT NO. 401A 2ND CROSS, SBM COLONY MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VAKKUND SONATAI GANAPATRAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MAHADEV RAO BAVALE S/O LATE DHARMA RAO BAVALE AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/O NO. 2, SUBHADRA RAO BAVALE COMPLEX, M S R MAIN ROAD MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560 054. 2. SRI. DOULTAH RAO BAVALE S/O LT DHARMA RAO BAVALE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O CHIKKADIGANAHALLI VILLAGE GAVADAGERE HOBLI HUNSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. 3. SRI RAMA RAO BAVALE S/O LATE DHARMA RAO BAVALE Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8484 RFA No. 54 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RF/O PEENYA 2ND STAGE INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560 054. 4. SMT. SULOCHANA BAI D/O LATE DHARMA RAO BAVALE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O 7TH ROAD, PARVATHI NILAYA K R NAGAR TOWN-571 602. 5. SRI. MUKUNDA RAO BAVALE S/O LATE DHARMA RAO BAVALE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO.854, 10TH CROSS ROAD DEEVANARA PALYA, GOKULAM EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 054. 6. SRI. DEVA RAO BAVALE S/O LATE DHARMA RAO BAVALE AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NO. 171/270, HUNSUR ROAD KR NAGAR TOWN-571 602. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED IN OS NO.3/2014 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R. NAGARA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The suit property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is valued at Rs.45,00,000/- while plaintiff's - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8484 RFA No. 54 of 2025 legitimate share is valued at Rs.6,42,000/-. Therefore, appeal would lie before the District Court. Hence, Office objection is upheld. 2. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to appellant to prefer an appeal before the District Court. 3. In the event, an appeal is filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the time spent in this appeal shall be excluded by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 4. Registry is directed to return certified copies after securing photocopies of the same. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42