Karnataka High Court
Govindamma vs Laxmanna on 1 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5550
RFA No. 200022 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200022 OF 2024 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
1. GOVINDAMMA W/O HANUMANTHA,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O IBRAHIMDODDI,
TQ. DIST. RAICHUR.
2. BASSAMMA W/O KRISHTAPPA,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O ASKIHAL,
Digitally signed TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR,
by RENUKA
DEAD BY L.RS.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2A) KRISHTAPPA S/0 BHIMAYYA,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
2B) JAYAMMA W/O SUDHARSHAN,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
2C) RAMESH S/O KRISHTAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5550
RFA No. 200022 of 2024
2D) ANJINAMMA W/O GOVARDHAN NAYAK,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
2E) RASHMI W/O YALLANGOUDA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O KORVI VILLAGE,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR.
2F) NARSAMMA D/O KRISHTAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
2G) SRIDEVI D/O KRISHTAPPA,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
3. BHADRAYYA S/O THIMMAYYA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O IBRAHIMDODDI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
4. NARASAPPA S/O THIMMAYYA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O IBRAHIMDODDI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
5. HAMPAYYA S/O THIMMAYYA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O INBRAHIMDODDI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
6. VEERESH S/O THIMMAYYA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O IBRAHIMDODDI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
7. SANNA NARASAMMA W/O ANJINAYYA,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O IBRAHIMDODDI,
TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5550
RFA No. 200022 of 2024
8. DODDA NARSAMMA W/O HANUMANTHA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O IBRAHIMDODDI, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAXMANNA S/O NARASAPPA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
2. VENKATESH NAYAK S/O RANGAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND TEACHER,
R/O P.U. COLLEGE, YADGIR.
3. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O RANGAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND TEACHER,
R/O YERRAGUNDA,
TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR.
4. CHANDRU S/O RANGAPPA,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
EMPLOYEE IN HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
R/O ASKIHAL, PRESENTLY R/AT YERRAGUDDA,
TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR.
5. SMT. TAYAMMA W/O NINGANNA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. RAICHUR.
6. SMT. YELLAMMA W/O NINGANNA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O GALAG, TQ. DEVADURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR.
7. SMT. DEVAMMA @ GANGAMMA W/O TIMMAPPA,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O RASHTRAPATHI ONI, BEHIND DARBAR,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5550
RFA No. 200022 of 2024
DEVADURGA DIST. RAICHUR.
DEAD BY HER L.RS.
7(A) THIMMAPPA S/O LATE LAXMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7(B) RAGHAVENDRA S/O THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, (MINOR),
7(C) SWETHA D/O THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS (MINOR),
THE RESPONDENT NO.7(B) AND 7(C) ARE
MINORS UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR
NATURAL FATHER RESPONDENT NO.7 (A),
ALL ARE R/O RASTRAPATHI ONI,
BEHIND DARBAR,
DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR.
(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER
ORDER ON I.A.I DATED 13.06.2022)
8. PADDAMMA D/O RANGAPPA,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O ASKIHAL, PRESENTLY R/AT YERRAGUDDA,
TQ. DEVADURGA, DIST. RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 AND 2 R/W
SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN
O.S.NO.54/2017 DATED 09-10-2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, RAICHUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5550
RFA No. 200022 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH
HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
The present appeal is against the judgment and
decree in a suit for partition and separate possession,
where the valuation of the property shown is
Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. The appellants filed an appeal before the
District Court. The District Court erroneously rejected the
appeal on the premise that it has no jurisdiction.
3. Since the District Court under Section 96 R/w
Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act has
jurisdiction to try the appeals up to Rs.10,00,000/- and
the High Court will get jurisdiction only if valuation is
above Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal filed before the District
Court was certainly maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal
before the District Court in R.A.No.89/2019 is restored.
The Appellate Court shall hear the appeal on merits.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5550
This appeal is disposed of for statistical purposes.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
LG
