IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY 2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

WRIT PETITION NO.8146/2015(GM-CPC)

BETWEEN :

SMT.HANUMAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.

1. SMT.JAYALAKSHMAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O SIDDAPPA D/O LATE HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NAGAR KADUR TOWN KADUR TALUK DISTRICT – 577 521.

2. SMT.SUMITHRAMMA W/O MALLESHAPPA D/O LATE HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NAGAR KADUR TOWN KADUR TALUK – 577 521.

3. SRI.MANJUNATH S/O LATE HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

2

R/AT HARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

4. SMT.HEMAVATHI W/O RAMESH D/O LATE HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT HARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

5. SMT.ANNAPOORNA W/O RAJANNA D/O LATE HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT.KADURHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

6. SMT.NAGARATHNA W/O SHASHIDHARA D/O LATE HANUMAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT.KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE SUNDAJJI GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT HARUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI

3

KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

2. SMT THIMMAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT V L NAGARA THANGALI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT– 577 521.

3. SRI SOMANNA S/O LATE ERALAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT KAMSAGARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

4. SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE ERALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT KAMSAGARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

5. SMT NAGAMMA W/O GOPALAIAH, D/O LATE ERALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SAKHARAYAPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

4

6. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRINIVASA, D/O LATE ERALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT J T ROAD, KADUR TOWN KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

7. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE ERALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. KAMASAGARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

8. SRI. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE K.T. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RETD. EXCISE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, R/AT. T.B. ROAD, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

9. SRI. THIMMANNA S/O LATE K.T. KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT T.B. ROAD, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

10. SMT THIMMAKKA W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

5

R/AT KAMSAGARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

11. SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 61YEARS, R/AT KODI CAMP, BIRUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521.

12. SMT LALITHA W/O T SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEASRS, R/AT NO.369/1, MARUTHI CHARNA APARTMENT, 1 ST FLOOR, NO.9, 1 ST MAIN, GARUDACHAR PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU-48

13. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.42/43, 7TH CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, SARASWATHIPURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-79

14. SRI K SRINIVASA S/O LATE K T KRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RAJKUMAR PLAZA R/A J T ROAD, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK,

6

CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT– 577 521.

15. SRI K T SHARADA W/O K KAMALAKARA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT B H ROAD, K T MUDIYAPPA EXTESION, KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 521.

16. SMT HALLAMMA W/O REVANNA, D/O LATE HANUMAMMA, R/AT K T MUDIYAPPA BADAVANE, KADUR TOWN, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 521. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S P KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R-1, SRI.A.K.SREEHARSHA, ADV. FOR R-3 TO R-6, SRI.N.V.MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR R-8 TO R-15, R-7 AND R-16 ARE SERVED BUT, UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2016, SERVICE OF NOTICE ON R-2, R-12 AND R-13 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEX-G PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR IN RA.NO.113/2012 DTD.28.1.2015 ALLOW THIS W.P. WITH COSTS.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

7

O R D E R

The legal representatives of deceased respondent

No.15 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 28.1.2015 made in RA No.113/2012 on the file of the II Addl. District Judge, Chikkamagaluru, dismissing the memos’ filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 15(b) to (g), who are the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.15 holding that the valuation of the subject matter of the original suit before the Trial

Court is within Rs.10 lakhs and as such, the II Addl.

District Judge, Chikmagalur, certainly has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

2. Respondent No.2 herein filed the suit in

O.S.No.18/2010 for partition and separate possession as the suit schedule properties contending that they are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants.

8

3. The first defendant filed the written statement and contended that he is the adopted son of

Sundajji Govindappa under the registered adoption deed dated 22.04.1962. He further contended that there is a Will. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. After contest, suit came to be decreed in part on 25.09.2012 declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for

1/4 th share in the suit ‘A’ schedule properties by metes and bounds. Against the said judgment and decree, first defendant therein filed the appeal before the II Addl.

District Judge, Chikmagalur.

5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 15 (b) to (g) filed memos’ stating that the plaintiff has valued the suit property at Rs.20,10,478/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. As such, the First Appellate Court has no

9

jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the suit value exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. The same was opposed by the appellant therein by filing objections.

6. The First Appellate Court after considering the memos’ and objections filed, by the impugned order dated 28.01.2015 dismissed the said memos’ and held that the valuation of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs and as the plaintiff’s

1/4 th share comes to Rs.5,02,620/-, the First Appellate

Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Hence the present Writ Petition is filed.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

8. Sri.A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the valuation slip filed in the original suit clearly discloses that the

10

total market value of the suit schedule property is

Rs.84,89,400/- and the plaintiff’s 1/4 th share comes to

Rs.5,02,620/-. For the purpose of Court fee in respect of the properties and market value for Court

Jurisdiction comes to Rs.20,10,478/-. Hence, Court fee of Rs.200/- has been paid. He also invite the attention of this Court to the memos’ filed by respondent Nos.1 to

3 and 15 (b) to (g) therein stating that the First

Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the value of the subject matter of the original suit exceeds Rs.10.00 lakhs. In spite of the same, the

First Appellate Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order falsely holding that the First Appellate

Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal even though the value of the suit exceeds Rs.10.00 lakhs, is without any basis. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed by allowing the Writ Petition.

11

9. Per contra, Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, learned

Counsel for respondent No.1 has sought to justify the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court and submits that undisputedly, value of the plaintiff’s

1/4 th share is Rs.5,02,620/-. Therefore, said sum shall be deemed to be the value of the subject matter of the original suit which is within Rs.10.00 lakhs. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The same was denied by the defendants by filing written statement. After contest, suit came to be decreed in part by the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2012 holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 th share in the suit ‘A’

12

schedule properties by metes and bounds. It is also an undisputed fact that the plaintiff has filed the valuation slip for Rs.20,10,478/-. It is categorically stated that total market value of the property for the purpose of Court jurisdiction is Rs.84,89,400/-; the plaintiff’s 1/4 th share comes to Rs.5,02,620/-. For the purpose of Court fee in respect of the property and the market value for Court jurisdiction comes

Rs.20,10,478/-. In the appeal filed before the First

Appellate Court, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 15(b) to (g) filed memos’ contending that since the value of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeds

Rs.10.00 lakhs, the First Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Inspite of the same, the First Appellate Court has proceeded to pass an order holding that the value of the suit property for the purpose of Court jurisdiction is within Rs.10 lakhs is

13

without any basis. The First Appellate Court has proceeded to pass the impugned order by ignoring the original valuation slip filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court and the memos’ filed by respondent Nos.1 to

3 and 15(b) to (g) before the Appellate Court.

11. The materials on record clearly indicate that the value of the suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeds Rs.10 lakhs. Therefore, the First

Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under the provisions of Section 19 of the

Karnataka Civil Courts Acts, 1964, which reads as under:

“19. Appeals from Civil Judge(Senior Division): Appeals from the decree and orders passed by a { Civil Judge (Senior Division)} in original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, shall when such appeals are allowed by law, lie.

14

1) to the District Court, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit or proceeding is less than (One Lakh rupees} 2) to the High Court, in other cases.”

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court holding that the value of the subject matter of the suit is within Rs.10 lakhs, is without any basis and the same is liable to be quashed.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.1.2015 made in

RA No.113/2012 on the file of the II Addl. District

Judge, Chikkamagaluru is quashed.

14. At this state, Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submits that the First

Appellate Court may be directed to return the original

15

appeal memo along with the certified copies enabling the respondents to file an appeal before this Court. The said submission is placed on record.

15. In view of the same the First Appellate Court is directed to return the original appeal memo along with certified copies to the respondents. The respondents shall file an appeal before this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the original appeal memo, with certified copies by the First

Appellate Court.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- JUDGE

SA