Siddalingayya S/O Fakkirayya ... vs Smt. Mahadevi Urf Nirmala W/O ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5303 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC-D:8297
                                                           RFA No. 100230 of 2022




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100230 OF 2022 (PAR/POS-)
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.    SIDDALINGAYYA S/O FAKKIRAYYA BETAGERI
                             @ BETAGERIMATH, AGE: 70 YEARS,
                             OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENTUR,
                             TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

                       2.    GANGAMMA W/O SIDDALINGAYYA BETAGERI
                             @ BETAGERIMATH, AGE: 65 YEARS,
                             OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BENTUR,
                             TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

                       3.    IRAYYA S/O SIDDALINGAYYA BETAGERI
                             @ BETAGERIMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS,
                             OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BENTUR,
                             TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

                       4.    SMT. BASAVVA
                             W/O RAJASHEKHAR BALAGANURMATH,
                             AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
          Digitally
          signed by
                             R/O: NEAR JODA HANUMANTDEVAR GUDI,
SAROJA
          SAROJA
          HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date:
                             TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
          2023.08.08
          15:09:53 -
          0700

                       5.    IRAVVA W/O IRANNA NAGALIMATH
                             AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                             R/O: C/O: IRANNA NAGLIMATH,
                             PUTTARAJ TRADING COMMISSION AGENCY,
                             APMC YARD, TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.

                                                                     ...APPELLANTS

                       (BY SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:8297
                                     RFA No. 100230 of 2022




AND:

1.   SMT. MAHADEVI URF NIRMALA
     W/O MRUTYUNJAYA KURAHATTIMATH
     AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: NELAWADI, TQ: ANNIGERI,
     DIST: DHARWAD-580005.

2.   TIPPANNA S/O MALLAPPA NASIPUDI
     AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O: BENTUR,
     TQ AND DIST: GADAG-582101.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS


     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 REAS WITH ORDER
XLI RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 15.02.2021 PASSED IN O.S.NO.99/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, GADAG, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.99/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Gadag.

2. The suit was one for partition and separate

possession. The suit properties as on the date of the suit

were valued at Rs.59,40,000/-. The plaintiff claimed 1/6th

share in the said properties. Thus, the valuation of

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8297 RFA No. 100230 of 2022

plaintiff's share would be Rs.9,90,000/-. Appeal lies

before the District Court.

3. The appellants filed the appeal before the

District Court, Gadag. That case was unfortunately not

numbered. Later, the learned District Judge returned the

appeal to the appellants with a liberty to present the same

before this Court on the premise that the District Court

has no pecuniary jurisdiction. The appellants accepting the

said order, have filed the instant appeal.

4. Registry has raised objection to the appeal on

the premise that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to

entertain the appeal.

5. The plaint averments would reveal that the

value of the suit schedule properties is Rs.59,40,000/-. As

already noticed, the value of 1/6th share of the plaintiff

would be Rs.9,90,000/-. In a suit for partition for the

purpose of court jurisdiction pecuniary value of the

plaintiff's share is relevant. Value of the entire suit

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8297 RFA No. 100230 of 2022

properties is not to be taken into consideration while

determining the court fee payable and the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, the appeal was rightly

presented before the learned District Court. Unfortunately,

this fact is not noticed by the learned District Judge.

6. Under these circumstances, the present appeal

is not maintainable before this Court. Hence, the appeal is

dismissed as not maintainable.

7. Registry to return the certified copies of

impugned judgment and decree to the appellants after

retaining photocopies of the same.

8. It is stated that, earlier appeal before the

District Court was filed in time. If the appeal is filed before

the learned District Court within 15 days, the same should

be treated as an appeal in time.

Sd/-

JUDGE