[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ishwarappa S/O Basavaneppa ... vs Sri. Mallappa S/O Fakkirappa ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4766
CRP No. 100162 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100162 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI ISHWARAPPA
S/O BASAVANEPPA BHUTARADDI,
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O HIREBAN HALADAKERI,
TQ. LAXMESHWAR,
DIST. GADAG-582116.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
CHANDRASHEKAR
SRI MALLAPPA
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
S/O FAKKIRAPPA BHUTARADDI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.02 06:23:40
+0100
1. SRI FHAKKIRAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA BHOOTARADDI,
AGE. 68 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O LAXMESHWAR,
TQ. LAXMESHWAR,
DIST. GADAG 582116.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4766
CRP No. 100162 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. SRI NINGAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA BHOOTARADDI,
AGE. 55 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O LAXMESHWAR,
TQ. LAXMESHWAR,
DIST. GADAG 582116.
3. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O MALLAPPA BHOOTARADDI,
AGE. 53 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O LAXMESHWAR,
TQ. LAXMESHWAR,
DIST. GADAG 582116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHOBHA H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025 ON
PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.4 IN OS NO.108/2020 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC LAXMESHWAR, AND ORDER MAY
KINDLY BE PASSED HOLDING THAT THE SUIT IN OS NO.108/2020 IS
UNDERVALUED AND COURT HAS NO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION TO
TRY THE SUIT, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVISION PETITION AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4766
CRP No. 100162 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 12.11.2025 passed by Civil Judge
and JMFC, Laxmeshwar in OS no.108/2020 on preliminary Issue
no.4 and thereby holding valuation of relief by plaintiff as proper,
this revision petition is filed.
2. Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that, petition was by defendant in OS
no.108/2020 filed by respondents, legal representatives of
original plaintiff. It was submitted, suit was filed for relief of
declaration of title, for possession and permanent injunction over
suit property namely CTS no.169/B-2 measuring 205 3/9th square
yards situated at Hireban village in Laxmeshwar Taluk.
3. After appearance, defendant filed written statement,
questioning valuation of suit properties by plaintiffs as improper.
It was asserted that market value of suit property was more than
Rs.16,30,000/- and beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court.
4. Based on same, Trial Court framed issues wherein,
issue no.4 regarding valuation and court fee was treated as
preliminary issue enquiry held. In course of same, defendant
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4766
HC-KAR
produced Sub-Register Guidance Value (SRGV) of properties for
year 2018-19 indicating market value at Rs.1,600/- per square
metre. He also produced sale deed of nearby property executed
in year 2020 for Rs.9,00,000/-. But Trial Court answered issue
no.4 in negative on ground that sale deed at Ex.D2 was in
respect of a larger extent of land located in residential area and
its value could not be compared with suit property, which was a
smaller extent and SRGV for year 2018-19, even if applied to
suit property, its market value would be Rs.2,74,240/- well
within pecuniary jurisdiction and substantially close to valuation
of suit property at Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. It was submitted, said finding would be contrary to
material on record and therefore, determination would be
suffered from material irregularity calling for interference. On
said grounds sought for allowing revision.
6. On other hand, Smt.Shobha H., learned counsel for
plaintiffs/respondents no.1 to 3 opposed revision petition.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and
material available on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4766
HC-KAR
8. In view of above, point that arises for consideration
is:
'Whether finding of trial Court on Issue no.4 would
warrant interference in revision?'
9. This revision petition is by defendant challenging
finding of trial Court on issue no.4 treated as preliminary issue.
Main ground urged is that valuation of suit property by plaintiff
was improper. To substantiate same, defendant produced SRGV
as Ex.D1 and sale deed of nearby property as Ex.D2. Valuation
of suit property as per SRGV for year 2014-15 is Rs.1,600/- per
square meters. If same is applied to equivalent extent of suit
property, value would be Rs.2,74,240/-. Even valuation in Ex.D2
at Rs.9,00,000/- is for a landed property measuring 53.140516
square metres with RCC building occupying 48.774075 square
metres.
10. Admittedly, suit property is of a larger extent than
property in Ex.D2 and cannot be presumed to fetch same market
value. Besides defendant would require to establish similarity.
Moreover value of Rs.9,00,000/- is for land and building, without
material to establish value of land only. Therefore said value
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4766
HC-KAR
cannot be held to apply to suit property, which is a vacant land.
Precisely on said reasoning, trial Court has answered issue no.4.
11. In view of above, there is no illegality or irregularity
pointed out in impugned order warranting interference in a
revision under Section 115. Hence, revision petition is
dismissed.
In view of dismissal, pending application/objections are
disposed of as unnecessary.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM/CLK
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54
