- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19823 RFA No. 2428 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2428 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. B.C. SHIVEGOWDA SON OF LATE CHANDREGOWDA RESIDING AT BALADARE VILLAGE, DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116 SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S 1. SMT. RATHNA (RATHNAMMA) WIFE OF LATE. B.S. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 2. SMT. BHANUKUMARI DAUGHTER OF LATE. B.S. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 2 ARE RESIDING AT HONNAKUMARANAHALLI VILLAGE, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 164 3. SRI. B.S. MANJEGOWDA SON OF SRI B.S. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 4. SMT. B.S. SHAILA DAUGHTER OF SRL B.S. SHANKAR, WIFE OF SRI DEEPAK, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, APPELLANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19823 RFA No. 2428 of 2025 HALE KOTE HOBLI, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PINCODE -573 211 5. SRI. B.S. SAGAR SON OF SRI B.S. SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 6. SMT. BHARATHI WIFE OF SRI B.S. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 7. SRI. B.D. MOHAN, SON OF SRI B.S. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 8. SRI. B.D. LOKANNA SON OF SRI B.S. DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, APPELLANTS 5, 6, 7, 8 ARE RESIDING AT BALADHARI VILLAGE, DANDIGA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PINCODE -573 225, 9. SRI B.D. THYAGARAJU SON OF DYAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 10. SMT. SUSHEELA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI NANJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 11. SMT. SHANTHAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI NANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 12. SMT. PUSHPA DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI NANJAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19823 RFA No. 2428 of 2025 13. SMT. LAKSHMI B.M. WIFE OF LATE SRI B.N.LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 14. SMT. B.L. DIVYA PRASAD DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI B.N. LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 15. SRI. B.L. VINAY PRASAD SON OF LATE SRI B.N. LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 16. SMT. B.L. KAVYA PRASAD DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI. B.N. LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 17. SMT. B.L. NAVYA PRASAD DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI B.N. LAKSHMI PRASAD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS APPELLANTS 9 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT BALADHARE VILAGE DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT, PINCODE -573225 (NOTE:SMT. PUTTAMMA WIFE OF LATE B.C. SHIVEGOWDA IS DEAD AND HER LR's ARE ON RECORD) …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SRIDHARA N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF B. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, 2. SRI. B. ASHOK SON OF LATE. B. BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19823 RFA No. 2428 of 2025 3. SRI. B. JAGADEESH @ JAGANNATH SON OF LATE B. BOREGOWDA DANDIGANAHHALLI HOBLI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT AT BALADARE VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT, PINCODE-573 225. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., CAVEATORS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S. NO.07 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA AND ALLOW THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHANNARAYAPATNA IN O.S. NO.07 OF 2018 AND TO RESTORE O.S. NO.7 OF 2018 TO ITS FILE FOR DISPOSAL OF THE SAME ON MERITS AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiff Nos.1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), plaintiff No.2, plaintiff Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 challenging the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channarayapatna, on an I.A. in O.S No.7/2018, which was filed for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19823 RFA No. 2428 of 2025 2. The plaint filed in the said suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') in terms of the impugned order. By virtue of Section 2(2) of CPC, rejection of the plaint also amounts to a decree and consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to file an appeal before the Appellate Court. However, it is seen that the plaintiffs had valued the suit property at more than Rs.30,00,000/- and their share was valued at a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- each. Consequently, an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC had to be filed before the District Court in view of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964. 3. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to file an appeal before the District Court in accordance with law. 4. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the learned counsel for the appellants after retaining a copy of the same. The time consumed in pursuing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19823 RFA No. 2428 of 2025 this appeal shall be deducted while considering the limitation applicable to an appeal before the District Court. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11