Smt.Vanajakshi W/O Somashekhar ... vs Smt.Archana W/O Kirtiverma Pujar
2023 Latest Caselaw 6364 Kant

                                                   -1-
                                                         NC: 2023:KHC-D:10136
                                                              RFA No. 100143 of 2020




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                       REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100143 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SMT. VANAJAKSHI
                            W/O SOMASHEKHAR PUJAR
                            AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                            R/O: PUJAR COMPOUND, NEAR HARIMANDIR,
                            SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

                      2.    SMT. CHAYA
                            W/O PARASHURAM BELLIKATTI
                            AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
                            R/O: NO.8 SAI RESIDENCY LAYOUT,
                            BANJAR LAYOUT MAIN ROAD,
                            HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043.

                      3.    SMT. VIDYA
                            W/O MURALI
                            AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
                            R/O: PUJAR COMPOUND, NEAR HARIMANDIR,
                            SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.
         Digitally
         signed by
         GIRIJA A
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
BYAHATTI Date:
                            SMT. VIDYA W/O MURALI BANAD,
         2023.09.11
         10:20:10
         +0530
                            R/O: NO.4, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN,
                            OPP PARK, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
                            MYSORE-570012.

                      4.    SRI. NIRANJAN
                            S/O GAJENDRA PUJAR
                            AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION CLERK,
                            BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE, DHARWAD-580008.
                            R/O: PUJAR COMPOUND, NEAR HARIMANDIR,
                            SAPTAPUR, DAHRWAD-580008.

                      5.    SRI. TARAKESH
                            S/O GAJENDRA PUJAR
                                 -2-
                                      NC: 2023:KHC-D:10136
                                         RFA No. 100143 of 2020




      AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
      BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICE,
      DHARWAD-580008.
      R/O: PUJAR COMPOUND, NEAR HARIMANDIR,
      SAPTAPUR, DAHRWAD-580008.


6.    SRI. SHIVAYOGI
      S/O GAJENDRA PUJAR
      AGE: 29 YEARS,
      OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
      R/O: PUJAR COMPOUND, NEAR HARIMANDIR,
      SAPTAPUR, DAHRWAD-580008.
                                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

      SMT. ARCHANA
      W/O KIRTIVERMA PUJAR
      AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
      R/O: PUJAR COMPOUND, NEAR HARIMANDIR,
      SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.
      NOW AT: NEAR AMBIKA HOTEL,
      UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI-580025,
      DIST: DHARWAD.

                                                    ...RESPONDENT

       THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO
SET    ASIDE   THE   JUDGMENT    AND     DECREE   DTD.27.11.2019
PASSED IN O.S.NO.41/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR    CIVIL   JUDGE   AND    CHIEF   JUDICIAL    MAGISTRATE,
DHARWAD AND DISMISS THE SUIT WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


       THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -3-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC-D:10136
                                          RFA No. 100143 of 2020




                              ORDER

The suit for partition is filed and the total value of the suit

properties is shown to be Rs.21 lakhs. The plaintiff claims 1/7th

share. Hence the appeal does not lie before this Court.

The appeal is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

Registry to return the certified copy of the judgment and

decree to the appellants.

In case the appeal is filed before the jurisdictional Court, the

time spent from 25.02.2020 till today in prosecuting this appeal,

be excluded in computing the period of limitation.

Sd/-

JUDGE

gab CT-PA