Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18434 Kant
Judgement Date : 24 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29193
RFA No. 913 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.913 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
GOVINDRAJ,
S/O. LAXMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT NO.69, 11TH CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 038.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. ADITI AJAY FOR
SRI. AJAY GOVINDRAJ.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. H. P. SUNDAR RAJ,
S/O. LATE H. PUTTALINGASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
SUMITHRA R R/AT BEHIND SATHYANARAYANA
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA SWAMY TEMPLE, HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA - 572 143.
2. H. S. SRINIVAS,
S/O. H. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATESHWARA STORES,
OPP OLD POLICE STATION,
MAIN ROAD, HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA - 572 143.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29193
RFA No. 913 of 2024
3. H.P. SATHYAMURTHY RAJ,
SINCE DECEASED REP BY HIS LRS,
PRASHANTHA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT GAJANANA ENTERPRISES,
MAIN ROAD, HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA - 572 143.
4. SURENDRA S.,
S/O. H. SATHYANARAYANA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATSHWARA STORES,
OPP OLD POLICE STATION,
MAIN ROAD, HIRIYUR,
CHITRADURGA - 572 143.
5. VAGDEVI VIDYA SAMSTHE,
LAKKAVVANAHALLI ROAD,
HIRIYUR - 572 143.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VISWAM NAGARAJ
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. .,ADVOCATE)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
29.02.2024 PASSED IN OS.NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HIRIYUR, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29193
RFA No. 913 of 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
The office objection raised is that in the suit before
the Trial Court the appellant-plaintiff has valued the
subject matter of the property at Rs.5,15,000/- and the
suit was dismissed. Therefore, the appellant-plaintiff has
preferred an appeal.
2. The appellant-plaintiff himself has made
valuation of Rs.5,15,000/-. Therefore, the Registry is
correct in raising the office objection hence, the appeal
dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.
3. However, liberty is reserved to file appeal
before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.
4. The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act,
is given to the appellant-plaintiff for the purpose of
calculation of limitation period.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!