Dismissed

Sri Ravi H v. Smt Lakshmakka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2022MFA/7666/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the appellant's submission that the appeal was not maintainable due to a subsequent increase in suit valuation after conversion to non-agricultural purposes. Applying Section 7(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as 'not maintainable' with liberty to file before the appropriate court.

Sri Ravi H Vs Smt Lakshmakka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 7666 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7666 OF 2022 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RAVI H., S/O LATE SRI. HANUMAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.130, SALUHUNASE VILLAGE, UDIPURA POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 082.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.SUBRAMANYA S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. LAKSHMAKKA, W/O SRI.NARASIMHAIAH, AGED 64 YEARS, BANJARUPALYA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.

¶13

SRI. CHIKKANNA, S/O SRI. DASAPPA, AGED 78 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. NARASAPPA, S/O SRI. DASAPPA, AGED 72 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 7666 of 2022

¶17

SMT. NARASAMMA, D/O SRI. SUBBANNA, AGED 80 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, D/O SRI. DASAPPA, AGED 68 YEARS,

¶19

ALL ARE R/AT SALUHUNASE, KAGGALIPURA DHAKALE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 082.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.4 AND 5 IN F.D.P.NO.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC, REJECTING IA NO.5 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Learned counsel for appellant submits that though value of suit at time of filing was Rs.10,000/-, subsequently it was converted for non-agricultural commercial purposes and value

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 7666 of 2022

¶27

is more than Rs.15,00,000/- and therefore, appeal before this Court would not be maintainable.

¶28

In view of Section 7(1) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, subsequent increase in valuation would not be relevant. Therefore, appeal would not be maintainable. Counsel submission is rejected.

¶29

Appeal is dismissed as 'not maintainable' with liberty

¶30

to file it before appropriate Court.

¶31

Registry to return certified copies of appeal by replacing them with photostat copies.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Ravi H v. Smt Lakshmakka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ravi H v. Smt Lakshmakka

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 Satish Kumar H O Vs Smt Gayathri Devi @ Nirmala Devi

Smt Shanta Bai Vs Sri S R Muniyappa

Sri R Ravichandar Vs Sri N Mubeen

Smt. Chennamma Vs Sri. Hanumanthappa

Sri N M Basappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt.Manohara Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer