Dismissed

S R Gowda v. Subbamma

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2021MFA/2966/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court upheld an office objection regarding the maintainability of a first appeal. The appeal, valued at Rs. 10,00,000/-, was held not maintainable before this High Court as the pecuniary limit for District Court jurisdiction was exceeded under the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of as not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction; memo returned to proper court.

S R Gowda Vs Subbamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

M.F.A.No.2966/2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2966/2021 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

S.R.GOWDA

¶10

S/O. P.R.THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶11

KUM.P.T.BHARATHI D/O. P.R.THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶12

BOTH ARE R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE HIRIYURU TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SMT.SRIDEVI.T.R, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SUBBAMMA

¶16

W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE

¶17

HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶18

M.R.GOWDA

¶19

S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶20

SUNANDHA

¶21

D/O. LATE MUNISWAMY MAJOR

¶22

P.B.RANGANATH SINCE DEAD REP. BY LRS.

¶23

(a) SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE P.B.RANGANATH

¶24

SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

¶25

M.F.A.No.2966/2021

¶26

¶27

(b) P.R.SHYAMALA W/O. MAHESH D/O. P.B.RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.21, BEHIND ANJENEYA TEMPLE LINK ROAD, 1^ST CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU

¶28

¶29

(d) P.R.BHAGYAMMA W/O. T.PANDURANGAPPA D/O. P.B.RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT THIMMANAHALLI POST & VILLAGE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶30

(e) P.R.DEVE GOWDA S/O. P.B.RANGANATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE

¶31

HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶32

5. RANGASWAMY

¶33

S/O. HANUMATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶34

NARASIMHAPPA

¶35

S/O. BADAPPA MAJOR R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶36

NAGARAJ S/O. LATE KARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶37

M.F.A.No.2966/2021

¶38

¶39

VEERANNA

¶40

S/O. BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶41

R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶42

LAKSHMAKKA W/O. LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR

¶43

R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE

¶44

HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶45

R.NAGARAJA

¶46

S/O. RANGAPPA MAJOR

¶47

R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE

¶48

HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA

¶49

P.R.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O. LATE RANGAPPA MAJOR

¶50

R/AT PITLALI VILLAGE

¶51

HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA ...RESPONDENTS

¶52

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLIII RULE 1(R) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HIRIYUR IN O.S.NO.20/2016 ON I.A.NO.9 ETC.

¶53

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits copy of

¶56

the valuation slip submitted before the trial Court. As per

¶57

the said valuation, the suit was valued at Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶58

As per Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civil

¶59

Courts Act, 1964, where the valuation of the subject

¶60

M.F.A.No.2966/2021

¶61

¶62

matter of the suit does not exceed Rs.10,00,000/-, the appeal lies to the District Court. Therefore the appeal is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Office objection with regard to maintainability is upheld.

¶63

Registry shall return the appeal memo for presentation before the proper Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

KSR

S R Gowda v. Subbamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S R Gowda v. Subbamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Syed Moulana Vs Smt Sharfunnisa

Smt Komalamma Vs Sri Lokesh

Mr K Vijaya Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Asian Fabtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Ramanaidu

M/S Intralife Vs Msk Worldwide Express Pvt. Ltd.

Chandrappa Vs Channappa