- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2026 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O MANJU D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.114, RAMABAI NAGARA ROAD MUNISWAMYNAGARA MYSURU-570008. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KASHINATH .J.D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MARUVAMMA W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS 2. CHIKKENNAMMA W/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SIDDAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 4. GEETHA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026 5. SAVITHA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6. SIDDAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 7. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 8. NAGAMMA D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ CHIKKASIDDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 9. MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE BUNDIKENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 10. NAVEENA S/O LATE BUNDIKENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 11. KIRAN S/O LATE BUNDIKENCHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS R1 To R11 ARE RESIDING AT K. SALUNDI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570008. 12. P. BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O LATE PADMANABHAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.690, 1ST CROSS, LIC COLONY SRIRAMPURA 2ND STAGE MYSURU-570008. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026 13. THE SECRETAR JNANAGANGA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.365, 10TH MAIN, 'C' BLOCK 1ST STAGE, J.P.NAGARA MYSURU-570008. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.III IN OS.NO.631/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.III FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(d) OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. 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 plaintiff’s 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties has been valued at Rs.6,00,000/-, whereas the total valuation of the entire suit schedule properties is Rs.42,00,000/-. It is a settled and trite principle of law that in a suit for partition, only the share claimed by the plaintiff constitutes the subject-matter of the suit, and not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026 the value of the entire joint family property. The valuation, for the purpose of maintainability of the appeal, must therefore necessarily be confined to the value of the plaintiff’s share alone. 2. In the light of the above settled position, this Court finds merit in the office objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the present appeal. Accepting the said objection, this Court holds that the appeal, as presented, is not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the appellant to work out his remedy in accordance with law. 3. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the certified copies of the impugned judgment and decree to the appellant after retaining photocopies of the same for the record of this Court. 4. In the event of the appellant filing a fresh appeal before the competent forum within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2701 RFA No. 72 of 2026 order, the appellant shall be entitled to exclusion of the time spent in prosecuting the present appeal before this Court, by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65