[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Venkatalakshmamma vs Sri. Venkataswamy on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3105
RFA No. 564 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
2. SRI. VENKATESHA
S/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA
DEAD
3. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
4. SMT. NAGAMMA
D/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA
AGED 55 YEARS
5. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M S/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED 58 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. SMT. CHAMUNDI
D/O LATE. MUNIYAPPA
AGED 49 YEARS
7. VENKATESH
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 26 YEARS
8. NAGARAJA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 32 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3105
RFA No. 564 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/AT.NO.149
MADHURANAGARA, 3RD STAGE
MUTSANDRA MAIN ROAD
SORAHUNASE EXTENSION
VARTHUR, BENGALURU,
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SYED NASEERUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
S/O. LATE VENKATAMARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/AT.NO.288, JANATA COLONY BATTARAHALLI
K.R.PURAM HOBLI
BANGALORE-560 049.
2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. SMT. DHANAMMA
D/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
4. SUBBAMMA
D/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT. NO.52
LAKSHMANA - MURTHY NAGAR
R.M.NAGAR, BANGALORE EAST
BANGALORE-560 016.
5. SMT. ANNAMMA
W/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3105
RFA No. 564 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. SMT. MARAKKA
D/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
7. SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O.VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
8. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH
S/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
9. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
10. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O. VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
NO.5 TO 10 ARE R/AT.
NO.288, JANATA COLONY BATTARAHALLI
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560 049.
11. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O. LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
12. SRI. M.P.VENKATESH
S/O. LATE PILLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.11 AND 12 ARE R/AT
MEDAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAGONDI POST
ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED IN OS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:3105
RFA No. 564 of 2025
HC-KAR
NO.1121/2011 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, BENGALURU (R) DISTRICT, BENGALURU., DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the plaint is valued at Rs.64,00,000/- for the
purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' 1/8th share
is valued at Rs.8,00,000/- which is less than
Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, an appeal lies before the
District Court.
2. Accordingly, the office objection is upheld and
the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
3. Registry to forthwith return the certified copies
of the judgment after securing photocopies.
4. In the event an appeal is filed within four weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order,
NC: 2026:KHC:3105
HC-KAR
appellants are entitled for exclusion of time spent before
this Court by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
