- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8485 RFA No. 177 of 2026 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. 177 OF 2026 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. D. MUNIYAMMA D/O. LATE. K. DONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT. GORAMADAGU VILLAGE KOTHNUR POST, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST - 562 105. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .A.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. D. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. SRI. GANGAIAH S/O. LATE. D. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 3. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O. LATE. D. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 4. SRI. R. RAMESH KUMAR S/O. LATE. D. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5. SRI. D. VENKATESH S/O. LATE. DONNAPPA Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8485 RFA No. 177 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 6. SRI. V. VINOD S/O. D. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 7. SRI. V. NAGARAJ S/O. D. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS THE R1 TO R7 ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO. 23, RAJEEVANAGARA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 135. 8. SMT. NAGARATHANA W/O. H. V. PURRASWAMY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT. NANJEGOWDANA DODDI VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 424. …RESPONDENTS THIS RFA IS FILED U/S. 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2025, PASSED ON IA NO. 2 IN OS NO. 820/219, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI PARTLY ALLOWING THE IA NO. 2 FILED U/O 7 RULE 11(a), (b) AND (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 This appeal arises out of a partition suit. The suit property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is valued - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8485 RFA No. 177 of 2026 at Rs.30,00,000/- while plaintiff's legitimate share is valued at Rs.7,50,000/-. It is the plaintiff's share which is the subject matter of the partition suit. 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.: 43