Karnataka High Court
Sri Sangappa S/O Shivappa Kotin vs Kumari Aishwarya D/O Ramesh Kilabanur on 13 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
CRP No. 100101 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100101 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANGAPPA,
S/O SHIVAPPA KOTIN,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA,
TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582 207.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUMARI. AISHWARYA,
D/O RAMESH KILABANUR,
AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
VN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN
KARNATAKA
BADIGER DHARWAD
BENCH
SMT. LAXMI W/O RAMESH KILABANUR,
Date: 2024.11.25
11:30:33 +0530 AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
R/O: BHAIRNATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
NOW R/O: YADWAD, TQ: GOKAK,
C/O. TIMMANNA S/O HANAMAPPA
YARAGUDRI OF YADWAD, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307.
2. SRI. RAMESH,
S/O LAXMAPPA KILABANUR,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: BHAIRNATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
CRP No. 100101 of 2022
3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LAXMAPPA KILABANUR,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA, TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582 207.
4. SRI. NINGAPPA,
S/O LAXMAPPA KILABANUR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KURUVINAKOPPA, TQ: NARGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582 207.
5. SMT. IRAWWA @ ANITA
W/O MAHADEVAPPA MIRJI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOME MAKER AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BHAIRNATTI, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 307.
6. SRI. FAKIRAPPA,
S/O DODDRUDRAPPA SANNADANI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HIREKOPPA, TQ: NARAGUND,
DIST: GADAG-582 207.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(R2 TO R5-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) (R6-SERVED)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 15.03.2022 ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.6 IN
O.S.NO.23/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, NARGUND, AND ORDER
MAY KINDLY BE PASSED HOLDING THAT THE SUIT IN
O.S.NO.23/2013 IS UNDERVALUED AND COURT HAS NO
JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SUIT, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE
REVISION PETITION AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
CRP No. 100101 of 2022
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the orders passed on preliminary issue in
O.S. No.23/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC,
Nargund, as to whether the Trial Court is having pecuniary
jurisdiction or not, defendant No.5 is before this Court.
2. Respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit seeking
relief of partition and separate possession in the suit property.
Issues were framed by the Trial Court and issue No.6 with
regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was treated as
preliminary issue. It is the case of the defendant that the suit
schedule properties are nine landed properties situated at
Kuruvinakoppa and Hirekoppa and four VPC properties situated
at Hirekoppa village Gram Panchayat. The propositus Laxmappa
Ramappa Kilabanur expired in the year 2009. His wife pre-
deceased him in the year 2001. Both of them have left
defendants No.1 to 4 as legal heirs. Out of the suit properties,
bearing Sy.Nos.56/2, 8 and 51/6 are the ancestral joint family
properties of the deceased. The remaining properties i.e., 'A'
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
and 'B' schedule properties were the properties of deceased
Laxman Ramappa Kilabanur and one of the suit properties
bearing Sy.No.51/6 of Kuruvinakoppa village was purchased by
the deceased for sale consideration of Rs.58,000/-. Earlier,
seeking partition of the very same suit properties, a suit in O.S.
No.149/2012 was filed and the same was decreed by judgment
and decree dated 29.03.2014 holding that the plaintiff is
entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and
defendants are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule
properties and Schedule 'A' properties and Schedule 'B'
properties were valued at Rs.54,23,750/- and Rs.7,50,000/-
respectively. Now, the daughter of defendant No.1 has filed the
present suit seeking partition i.e., half share in 1/4th share
which fell to his father.
3. The petitioner before this Court has purchased the
property from the father of the plaintiff. Now, the grievance of
the defendant is that in the earlier suit when the suit property
is valued at a higher price, now the very same properties which
were part of the suit schedule properties, they were
undervalued. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a copy
of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.149/2012 before this
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
Court to show that how the properties are valued but in spite of
the same, the Trial Court had failed to take into consideration.
It is submitted that once the properties are properly valued, the
Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
4. The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court,
without any discussion, has come to the conclusion that the suit
is properly value and that it is within the pecuniary jurisdiction
of the Court without appreciation of the facts and contentions.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1
submits that as per the Sub-Registrar value, the suit is valued
Ex.P.1 and P.2 and considering the same, the Trial Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that the property is properly
valued and it is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.
He submits that he is seeking only half share of the 1/4th share
which is granted to the father of the plaintiff.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record.
7. The suit schedule properties are properties 'A' and
'B'. Schedule 'A' properties are the landed properties. In
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
respect of the landed properties, the plaintiff had produced
Ex.P.1 and P.2, and basing on that, the Trial Court has come to
the conclusion that the suit is properly valued. When this Court
has perused those documents pertaining to the landed
property, as far as 'B' Schedule property is concerned which are
residential building and open space, no document is placed
before the Court to show what is the value of those properties
as per the register maintained with sub-registrar. The Trial
Court ought to have considered the said aspect. The order of
the Court as far as 'A' Schedule properties are concerned holds
good, but in respect of 'B' Schedule properties, the Trial Court
needs to reconsider the same. Hence, in view of the above
discussion, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i) The order impugned dated 15.03.2022 passed on
preliminary issue in O.S. No.23/2013 by the Civil
Judge and JMFC, Nargund, is set aside, as far as
'B' Schedule properties are concerned. As far as
'A' Schedule properties are concerned, the
valuation holds good. Accordingly, the order of
the Trial Court as indicated above is set aside
and remanded back to the Court for fresh
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16565
consideration and the Trial Court shall consider
the same in accordance with law.
ii) The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in
support of their case.
iii) Accordingly, the CRP is disposed off.
iv) All pending I.As., in this petition shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
KMS
CT:BCK
