Disposed

Mrs Kusum Tayal v. Mr Mahadevu

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2024CRP/339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application seeking dismissal of a specific performance suit for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held the jurisdictional question involved a disputed question of fact requiring trial and directed the trial court to frame an issue on territorial jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to frame an issue on territorial jurisdiction; CRP disposed.

Mrs Kusum Tayal Vs Mr Mahadevu — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:20222 CRP No. 339 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 339 OF 2024 (IO)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS KUSUM TAYAL W/O CHETHAN P TAYAL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PRESENT NOW RESIDING AT NO. 66, FORTUNE VALLEY, DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560024.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. AKSHATHA SHETTY K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR MAHADEVU S/O MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOORGALLI VILLAGE, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK-571606.

¶14

SRI.MADEGOWDA S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS

¶15

SMT.CHENNAMMA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS W/O MADEGOWDA

¶16

SRI.BASAVEGOWDA S/O MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶17

SRI.JAYARAMA S/O MADEGOWDA

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20222 CRP No. 339 of 2024

¶19

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶20

SRI.KUMARA S/O MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶21

RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT HOSAHUNDAVADI VILLAGE, KRS POST, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTICT-571607.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 CPC PRAYING TO PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2024 IN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 15 AND DISMISS THE SUIT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN O.S.NO. 24/2008 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SRIRANGAPATNA VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶24

THIS CRP, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶27

following reliefs;

¶28

1. To set aside the order dated 30.01.2024 in Interlocutory Application No.15 and dismiss the suit filed by the Respondent No.1 in O.S.No.24/2008 which is pending before the Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge at Srirangapatna vide Annexure-A

¶29

2. To grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶30

Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.24/2008 seeking for the following reliefs:

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20222 CRP No. 339 of 2024

¶32

a) Specific performance of contract directing the defendants to register the sale deed conveying the right, title and interest of the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-

¶33

b) Pass such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

In the said suit, the petitioner herein was impleaded as defendant No.6. Thereafter, defendant No.6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC contending that the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Srirangapatna does not have territorial jurisdiction over the property described in the schedule of the agreement of sale and the plaint inasmuch as the said land was stated to be one situated in Beechanahalli and Beechanahalli would not come in the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.

¶35

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land is situated in Beechanakuppe and not Beechanahalli. The fact that

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:20222 CRP No. 339 of 2024

¶38

relief has been sought for land in Beechanahalli would bar the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court.

¶39

From the submission made, it is clear that the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Srirangapatna has territorial jurisdiction over Beechnakuppe but not Beechanahalli. Whether the agreement is one which has been executed as regards land in Beechanahalli or Beechnakuppe is a disputed question of fact which would have to undergo trial. It would have been different if the land of defendant No.6 had been situate in Beechanahalli as regards which the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Srirangapatna would not have jurisdiction. The land being situated within the territorial jurisdiction, the disputed question of fact as regards the agreement being executed properly or not would have to be ascertained only after trial. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20222 CRP No. 339 of 2024

¶41

the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the trial court.

¶42

Pleadings have been completed and the issues having been framed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that issue as regards jurisdiction has not been so framed.

¶43

Considering that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC had been filed, it was but required for the trial Court to also take this into account and frame such relevant issues. Hence the trial Court is directed to consider the same and frame necessary issue as regards the territorial jurisdiction in respect of the land, situate within its jurisdiction or not, and proceed thereof. The Civil Revision Petition stands disposed . Pending IA stands disposed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

PRS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Mrs Kusum Tayal v. Mr Mahadevu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kusum Tayal v. Mr Mahadevu

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

Basavarajappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Veerabhadrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shankar G Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K v Guruswamy Vs Smt Kempamma

Smt. Chandribai Vs Umesh K

The Managing Committee Vs the Karnataka State Board of Waqfs