Karnataka High Court
Sri V Rajanna vs Sri V Rangaraju on 23 May, 2022
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3100/2019 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI V. RAJANNA
S/O LATE V. VENKATARAMANUJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2. SRI SHAM SUNDER GURUJI
S/O V. RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
BOTH THE APPELLANTS ARE
R/AT MANTAPA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU- 560 084.
3. SMT.V. PADMA
D/O LATE V. VENKATARAMANUJAIAH,
W/O KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT MANTAPA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU- 560 084.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI V. RANGARAJU
S/O LATE V. VENKATARAMANUJAIAH,
-2-
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 922, 6TH MAIN,
7TH CROSS, PRAKASHNAGAR,
BENGALURU- 560 021.
2. SRI V. VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE V. VENKATARAMANUJAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.314, 1ST A CROSS,
3RD BLOCK, HRBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU- 560 084.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER XLIII RULE 1(A) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1908, THIS MFA MAY NOT BE MAINTAINABLE AGAINST ORDER
PASSED IN RA.NO.5055/2018 DATED 06.03.2019 BEFORE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT AT ANEKAL SINCE FIRST APPEAL PROVISION
IS ALREADY EXHAUSTED.
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellants have called in question the order
dated 06.03.2019 in R.A. No.5055/2018 on the file of
the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal [for short,
'the appellate Court']. The appellate Court, by the
impugned order dated 06.03.2019, has dismissed the
appellants' regular appeal in R.A. No.5055/2018 on the
ground of pecuniary jurisdiction but with liberty to the
appellants to file the appeal before this Court.
2. The respondents have filed their suit for
partition in O.S. No.1053/2007 on the file of the Senior
Civil Judge, Anekal asserting individual one-third share
in the suit schedule properties and valuing such
individual shares in a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. The total
value of these two shares together is valued in a sum of
Rs.15,00,000/-. The civil Court has decreed the suit by
the Judgment and decree dated 10.10.2018, and the
appellants have called these in the regular appeal in
R.A. No.5055/2018 before the appellate Court. The
appellate Court, in dismissing the appeal, has opined
that it has no pecuniary jurisdiction because the value
of the respondents - plaintiffs' shares is more than
Rs.10,00,000/- and the appeal would be before this
Court in view of the provisions of the Karnataka Civil
Courts Act, 1964.
3. Sri. P.N. Rajeswara, learned counsel for the
appellants, submits that the appellate Court has erred
in failing to consider that each of the respondents had
sought for their separate one-third share valuing such
one-third share in a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. The
combined value of these shares i.e., Rs.15,00,000/-
would be relevant only if the respondents - plaintiffs,
had sought for a joint share between them.
4. Sri. P.N. Rajeswara, relying upon the orders
of this Court dated 14.11.2018 in 'Smt. M. Veena v. Smt.
Suma and Others' in MFA No.7023/2017, argues that
when the plaintiffs seek individual share and the value
of each such share is below Rs.10,00,000/-, the
pecuniary jurisdiction will have to
be decided accordingly, and only if the
plaintiffs claim a joint share without asking for
individual and separate share, the value of the joint
share would become material for the suit and for
appeal.
5. The paragraphs 27.4 and 27.5 of this
Court's Order in MFA No.7023/2017 read as under:
"(4) If the plaintiffs claim their joint share
without asking for individual separate
share, then in such an event, the joint
share of the plaintiffs becomes the subject
matter of the suit and for appeal, then suit
should be valued for the purpose of court
fee and jurisdiction on the joint share of the
plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs are more than
one.
(5) If the plaintiffs are more than one, but they
claim their individual and separate share to
be declared, in such an eventuality, for the
purpose of court fee, they have to pay the
court fee on their individual share
separately, but for the purpose of
jurisdiction the largest share amongst the
plaintiffs becomes the subject matter of the
suit, therefore, in such an eventuality,
single largest share of the plaintiff has to
be taken into consideration as subject
matter of the suit for the purpose of
jurisdiction of the court".
6. Sri. Kaleemulla Shariff, learned counsel for
the respondents, is unable to controvert the canvass
that the respondents have sought for individual one-
third share as against the joint two-third share in the
subject property. If this remains uncontroverted and
the test in terms of this Court's Order dated 14.11.2018
for the purposes of jurisdiction is the value of the
individual share subject to the condition that the value
of the largest share shall decide the jurisdiction, the
impugned order cannot be sustained and must be set
aside and the proceedings in R.A. No.5055/2018
restored for reconsideration on merits. Hence the
following:
ORDER
[a] The appeal is allowed;
[b] The impugned order dated 06.03.2019
in R.A. No.5055/2018 on the file of the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal is
set aside and the appeal restored for
reconsideration on merits;
[c] The parties shall appear before the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru Rural District, Sitting at Anekal
without further notice on 20.06.2022.
SD/-
JUDGE
AN/-
