Karnataka High Court
Sri. Tukaram Ws/O Vittal Phalake vs Government Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
RSA No. 100597 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100597 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. TUKARAM S/O. VITTAL PHALAKE,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. SMT. ANASUYA W/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
3. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE,
R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
Digitally
signed by
YASHAVANT
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR 4. SMT. TEJA D/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE,
NARAYANKAR Date:
2025.10.15 AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
11:28:04
+0530 R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
5. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. H. R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
RSA No. 100597 of 2025
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOTE-587103, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
2. THE TAHASILDAR
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
JAMKHANDI-587301, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
3. SHRI SUBASHCHANDRA
S/O. BALAPPA BHOSALE,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. FOREST GUARD,
R/O.HONAWAD-586130, TQ. TIKOTA,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR, WILD LIFE DIVISION,
KAVERI WILD LIFE DIVISION,
R/O.HANUR-571439,
TQ. HANUR, DIST. CHAMARAJNAGAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DAYANAND SUNGRESHI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
R3-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE
1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.23/2024 BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, JAMKHANDI, FURTHER IT IS PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.89/2024 DATED
11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, JAMKHANDI, C/C PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI
WITH A PRAYER TO DECREE THE SAID SUIT O.S.NO.89/2024 ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI,
WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AS PRAYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT
WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
RSA No. 100597 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
the learned HCGP.
2. The short point that arises for consideration in this
appeal is:
"Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in
dismissing the suit when it did not overturn the
finding of the Trial Court that it had no jurisdiction?"
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs are
the father, mother and siblings of Krishnabai, who was given in
marriage to defendant No.3. The deceased-Krishnabai and
defendant No.3 were residing at Hunsur of Chamarajnagar
District after their marriage and the matrimonial life was not
cordial. The deceased-Krishnabai committed suicide and
therefore, a criminal case was registered in Bilekere Police
Station in Crime No.54/2023 on 13.03.2023 for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A, 304(B) read with section 34 of
Cr.P.C., and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
HC-KAR
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application for survival
certificate (Legal Heirs Certificate) to the concerned authorities
at Jamakhandi and the Tahsildar, Jamakhandi had granted the
same. However, the death benefits of deceased-Krishnabai were
not released to the plaintiffs. Therefore, they instituted a suit in
O.S.No.89/2024 before the learned Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Jamakhandi. The respondent-State appeared before the
Trial Court and filed written statement contending that the Court
had no jurisdiction since the deceased-Krishnabai was residing at
Hunsur with her husband and therefore, it is only the Court at
Hunasur, which has the jurisdiction. Accordingly, additional issue
was framed by the Trial Court and it gave a finding on the said
additional issue stating that the Courts at Hunsur alone has
jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the question of jurisdiction
was addressed by the Trial Court, it did not determine the issue
Nos.1 and 2. After recording a finding that it had no jurisdiction,
the Trial Court went on to dismiss the suit.
4. The same was challenged by the appellants before
the First Appellate Court stating that the judgment of the Trial
Court in dismissing the suit is not justifiable since the plaint
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
HC-KAR
should have been returned for presentation before the
appropriate Court as it came to the conclusion that it had no
jurisdiction. However, the First Appellate Court went to consider
the said aspect along with other issues also. In doing so, it did
not specifically address the issues regarding the jurisdiction. In a
single line, in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, it holds
that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit but no
reasons are assigned. After saying so, it goes on to determine
the issue No.2 also and then the appeal was dismissed. The
paragraph 21 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court reads
as below:
"21. The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the
suit. The trial court has not given findings on the
issue No.1 and 2. Furthermore the trial court has
not treated additional issue as preliminary issue but
answered issue No.1 and 2 as does not arise. The
trial court ought to have given findings on issue
No.1 and 2. The main object of settlement of issue
is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties
by narrowing down the area of conflict and
determine where the parties differ. Issues are the
lifeline and guide for any suit and therefore the
framing of issues has very important duty on the
trial court and decision of a case. By combined
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
HC-KAR
reading of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 2
what therefore emerges is that, except in situations
covered by sub-rule (2) a court must dispose of a
suit as a whole, try all issues of law and fact
together and accordingly pronounce judgment on all
such issues even though the case may be disposed
of on a preliminary issues".
Order 14 Rule 2 court to pronounce the
judgment on all the issues 1) not withstanding of
that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary
issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues. But
trial court has not given findings on issue No.1 and
2. Hence, trial court has not complied the provisions
of the Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC and committed an
error."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits
that once the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, the plaint
should have been returned for presentation before the
appropriate Court. On the other hand, the Trial Court had
dismissed the suit itself. Though evidence was recorded, since
the question of jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law,
the recording of the evidence would not have weighed much
before the Trial Court. So far as the judgment of the First
Appellate Court is concerned, in paragraph 21, the Court holds
that the Trial Court has jurisdiction but it does not remand the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
HC-KAR
matter to the Trial Court to give finding on the remaining issue
No.1 and 2 framed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the First
Appellate Court has also erred in dismissing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent-State submits that the impugned judgments are
proper and correct and no interference is required, however no
substantial contentions are taken by him.
7. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court has not
given any finding on issue No.1 and 2 on the ground that it had
no jurisdiction. When the Court came to the conclusion that it
has no jurisdiction, the course open to the Trial Court was to
return the plaint. Therefore, the Trial Court could not have
dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court though holds in
paragraph 21 of its judgment that the Trial Court has jurisdiction
to entertain the suit, it dismissed the appeal. Under these
circumstances, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is not
sustainable in law. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is disposed of.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705
HC-KAR
ii) The impugned judgment and decree
dated 28.02.2025 in R.A.No.23/2024
passed by the Principal Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi is hereby
set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded back to the
First Appellate Court to give a clear
finding as to whether the Trial Court has
jurisdiction or not and then if there was
no such jurisdiction, it shall direct the
Trial Court to return the plaint for
presentation of the same before the
appropriate Court.
iv) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
v) In view of disposal of the appeal,
pending interlocutory applications, if
any, do not survive for consideration
and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
YAN
CT:PA
