Karnataka High Court
Smt Sandhya Doddamani W/O Kiran ... vs T Srinivas Shetty S/O T.Vishwanath ... on 8 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
RFA No. 100413 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100413 OF 2025 (PAR/POS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SANDHYA DODDAMANI
W/O. KIRAN DODDAMANI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NO.8*/44/2ND MAIN,
5TH CROSS, BEHIND CANARA BANK,
NARAYANAPUR, VTC DHARWAD-580008.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BANDI DAYANAND MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAMREEN
AYUB 1. T. SRINIVAS SHETTY
DESHNUR S/O. T.VISHWANATH SHETTY,
Digitally signed by
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
2. SMT. T.LAKSHMI
W/O. T.SRINIVAS SHETTY,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
3. T. BADRISH
S/O. T.SRINIVAS SHETTY,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE.
4. T. SAGAR S/O. SRINIVAS SHETTY
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
RFA No. 100413 of 2025
HC-KAR
[RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE R/O.:PLOT NO.46,
HOUSE NO.1506, NMDC COLONY,
J.P.NAGAR, HOSAPETE,
DIST: VIJAYNAGAR-583201]
5. MOHAMMED ABDUL ROUFF
S/O. LATE H.ADBULLAH SAHAB,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 3RD CROSS, PATEL NAGAR,
HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
6. SRI. VENKATA REDDY
S/O. LATE M.NARAYAN REDDY,
AGE: NOT KNOWN, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
R/O. AT: #992, ANNAPURNA BADAVANE,
HOSAPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.ASHOK KUMAR GANAPATHY KUPPUSWAMY,
ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT/DECREE/ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HOSAPETE IN OS NO.105/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO
DISMISS THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT
NO.5 FILED U/O VII 11 OF CPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
RFA No. 100413 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
The Registry has raised an objection to the effect that
this Court does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
and adjudicate upon the present appeal having regard to
the fact that the subject matter of the appeal is
Rs.10,00,000/- and an appeal is to be filed before the
jurisdictional District Court in terms of Section 19(1) of the
Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act, 1964'),
since, the subject matter of the present appeal is confined
only to item No.1 of the suit properties, in respect of which
the appellant/plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs.10,00,000/-
being the alleged 1/4th share of the plaintiff in item No.1 of
the suit schedule properties.
2. A perusal of the material on order record
including the plaint in OS No.105/2024 and the impugned
order passed on IA No.8 will indicate that, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
HC-KAR
appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit in OS
No.105/2024, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Hosapete, seeking partition and separate
possession of her alleged 1/4th shares in four items of suit
schedule properties by valuing all the properties together at
Rs.6,28,00,000/- and the plaintiff's 1/4th share was
quantified at Rs.1,56,00,000/-.
3. The valuation slip filed by the appellant/plaintiff
before the Trial Court is as under:
VALUATION SLIP FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
Suit Value of the Mode of Valuation C.F
schedule- property valuation to the arrived at paid
II, Item extent of
No.1 to 4 plaintiff share
Properties 1/4th share
Item No.1 Rs.40,00,000 valued at Suit for Rs.
Rs.10,00,000/- partition C.F.
paid U/s
35(2) of K.C.F
and S.V.Act.
Item No.2 Rs.28,00,000/ valued at
- Rs.6,00,000/-
Item No.3 5,00,00,000/- 1,25,00,000/-
Item No.4 60,00,000/- 15,00,000/-
In total the plaintiff values all of the suit schedule-II and III, Item
No.1 to 4 and Item NO.1 to 4 properties Rs.6,28,00,000/- each
plaintiff share Rs.1,56,00,000/- fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is
herewith paid.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
HC-KAR
4. The respondent No.5/defendant No.5 filed the
instant application in IA No.8 seeking rejection of the plaint
insofar as it relates to item No.1 of the suit schedule
properties on the ground that the suit was not maintainable
and that there was no cause of action for the said suit. By
the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to reject the
plaint in part in relation to item No.1 of the suit schedule
properties and directed deletion/striking off of the said
property from the array of properties.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the
plaint insofar as item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is
concerned, the appellant/plaintiff is before this Court by
way of the present appeal.
6. As is clear from the aforesaid valuation slip filed
by the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court, the market
value of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is shown
as Rs.40,00,000/- and the alleged 1/4th share of the plaintiff
is quantified at Rs.10,00,000/-. It is therefore clear that,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
HC-KAR
the valuation column No.2 in the memorandum of appeal
purporting to incorporate all the suit schedule properties is
clearly erroneous since, the subject matter of the present
appeal is restricted to the impugned order passed on IA
No.8 which relates only to item No.1 of the suit schedule
properties and not in relation to the remaining suit schedule
properties.
7. Under these circumstances, in the light of the
provisions contained under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1964,
the office objection deserves to be upheld and the present
appeal deserves to be disposed of, reserving liberty in
favour of the appellant to file an appeal before the
appropriate/jurisdictional District Court in accordance with
law.
8. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby disposed off on the
ground of lack/want of pecuniary jurisdiction
on the part of this Court to entertain and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
HC-KAR
adjudicate the present appeal in view of
Section 19(1) of the Act, 1964.
(ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff to prefer an appeal before
the appropriate/jurisdictional District Court
within a period of six (6) weeks from today.
If such an appeal is preferred within a
period of six (6) weeks from today, the
appellant would be entitled to the benefit of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
(iii) The Registry is directed to return the
requisite papers back to the appellant
forthwith to enable him to proceed further in
accordance with law.
(iv) It is made clear that no opinion is expressed
on the merits/demerits of the rival
contentions.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11420-DB
HC-KAR
(v) Pending interim applications, if any, do not
survive and the same are hereby disposed
of.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SMM / Ct:vh
