J.GOVINDAPPA v. J.NAGARAJU
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. JADAPPA, S/O LATE MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT P.ROPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST-561 202. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, R/W ORDER R1 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: J.GOVINDAPPA S/O JADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT P.ROPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-561 202. (BY SMT. NALINA.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.K.VENKATAKA REDDY., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND:
J.NAGARAJU S/O JADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka
SHARADAMMA, W/O J.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
N.KAVYA, D/O J.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
N.NAVYA, D/O J.NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
N.SUMITH SAGAR, S/O J.NAGARAJU, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1014 RFA No. 10 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, AND FATHER J.NAGARAJU/1ST RESPONDENT.
JADAPPA, S/O LATE MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT P.ROPPA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMAKURU DIST-561 202. …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96, R/W ORDER R1 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt. Nalina.K., counsel on behalf of Sri. Venkata Reddy.S.K., for the appellant has appeared in person. A perusal of the office note depicts that the value of the subject matter of the appeal is less than Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). In view of Section 19(1) of Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, an appeal is maintainable before the District Court. For statistical purpose, the Regular First Appeal is disposed of. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1014 RFA No. 10 of 2025 The Registry concerned is hereby directed to return the documents by replacing the same with Xerox copies. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 46
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.