IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1093 OF 2025 (PAR)

BETWEEN: NINGAMMA

D/O LATE DASAPPA

W/O PUTTARAJU

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

R/O: HARIVESANDRA VILLAGE

CHELUR HOBLI

GUBBI TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572216

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. P S MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by AL BHAGYA MANJUNATHA H D

Location: HIGH

COURT OF S/O LATE DASAPPA

KARNATAKA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

R/O HARIVESANDRA VILLAGE

CHELUR HOBLI

GUBBI TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT -572216

…RESPONDENT

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST

THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2024 PASSED IN

O.S.NO.93/2020 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by the appellant–plaintiff calling in question the judgment and decree whereby the suit for partition, in which the plaintiff sought allotment of his legitimate half share in the suit schedule properties, came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said decree of dismissal, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

2. At the threshold, the Office has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act contending that the valuation of the plaintiff’s share for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction is below ₹10,00,000/-, and therefore, the appeal is required to be presented before the jurisdictional District Court and not before this Court.

3. It is well settled that in a suit for partition, the subject matter of the suit, for the purpose of court fee and pecuniary jurisdiction, is the share claimed by the plaintiff and not the entirety of the joint family properties. In the present case, the plaintiff claims a half share in the suit schedule properties. Even assuming that the total valuation of the properties is ₹16,50,000/-, the valuation relatable to the plaintiff’s half share would fall below ₹10,00,000/-. Consequently, the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal vests with the District Court and not with this Court.

4. In view of the above, the objection raised by the Office is sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the certified copy of the impugned judgment to the appellant.

6. The time spent by the appellant in prosecuting the present appeal before this Court shall stand excluded by extending the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provided the appeal is presented before the jurisdictional District Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy and the certified copies.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42