Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 46975 (KAR)

SMT T LAKSHMIDEVI v. SMT SHARADAMMA

RFA/509/2025 · 2026-01-20

Sachin Shankar Magadum

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3106 RFA No. 509 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. T. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA .Y.K AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO. 93, YARADAKATTE METIKURKE POST, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577599. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHIJITH .M.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE Y.K. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 2. Y.C. BANUPRAKASH S/O LATE Y.K. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. Y.C. VISHNU PRAKASH S/O LATE Y.K. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 4. Y.C. KIRTHINI D/O LATE Y.K. CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HOSPITAL ROAD OPP. MANJUNATHA, CEMENT AGENCY HIRIYURU-560064. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3106 RFA No. 509 of 2025 5. SATHYAPPA S/O LATE KADURAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 6. K. VEERAPPA S/O LATE KADURAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 7. RANGAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR 8. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 9. HONNAPPA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR 10. KUMARA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR 11. LOKESHA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR 12. VISHWANATHA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR R5 TO R12 ARE R/AT YARADAKATTE VILLAGE METIKURKE POST, HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 13. HONNAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR W/O BIMBODHARA PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3106 RFA No. 509 of 2025 MAKAL, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 14. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT MAJOR W/O THIMANNA R/AT BASAVARAJA PET BASAVANAGUDI NEAR ALUR NARAYANAPPA SCHOOL DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. 15. L.S. MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O LATE S.M. SHANTHAVEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O BABBUR VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 16. THE COMMISSIONER CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN MUNICIPALITY HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 17. THIPPEERAMMA W/O R. KARIYAPPA R/O BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE DHAMAPURA HOBLI HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.04.2014 PASSED IN O.S.No.1/2008 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HIRIYUR, PARTLY DECREEING 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 SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3106 RFA No. 509 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT The valuation slip reveals that the plaint was valued at Rs.15,95,000/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Since, plaintiff's 1/5th share is valued at Rs.6,76,000/-, the appeal is not maintainable before this Court. 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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3106 RFA No. 509 of 2025 3. Accordingly, office objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Registry to forthwith return the certified copies of the judgment after securing photocopies. 5. 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 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 ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48