Partly allowed

Channappa M/O Huligemma v. Vinodabai W/O Shrinivas Pathak

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2024WP/101071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged a lower court order rejecting an application regarding suit maintainability due to improper valuation. This court allowed the petition in part, directing the learned Judge to frame an issue casting burden on the petitioner/defendant regarding the suit's valuation and jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part. The learned Judge shall frame an issue casting burden on the petitioner/defendant and thereafter proceed to decide the case.

Channappa M/O Huligemma Vs Vinodabai W/O Shrinivas Pathak — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7990 WP No. 101071 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 101071 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHANNAPPA M/O HULIGEMMA AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O CHIKKA JANTAKAL, TQ. GANGAVATI DIST. KOPPAL-583227

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K ANANDKUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

VINODABAI W/O SHRINIVAS PATHAK AGE. ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O NEAR VITHOBA TEMPLE HUNGUND TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587118

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2024.06.21 12:01:05 +0530

¶14

SMT. SAVITA W/O RAJESH DABADE AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O 11TH CORSS VIDYAGIRI, DIST BAGALKOT-587101

¶15

VENKATESH S/O SHRINIVAS PATHAK

¶16

AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC SERVICE, R/O NEAR VITHOBA TEMPLE HUNGUND TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BELAGAVI-587118

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.RAVIRAJ C.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, I) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 17-01-2024 PASSED BY THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC GANGAVATI ON IA NO. III FILED U/O 14 RULE 5 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IN OS NO. 67/2018 AS AT ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7990 WP No. 101071 of 2024

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit for

¶24

declaration, injunction and for the relief of possession in O.S.No.67/2018. The present petitioner/defendant at para 10 of the written statement has contended that the plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

The present petitioner/defendant referring to some admissions in the cross-examination, filed an application in I.A.No.3 filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC to cast burden on the plaintiffs to prove that the court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Judge has rejected application holding that the defendant cannot insist and cast burden on the plaintiffs to substantiate that suit filed before the court is maintainable and has pecuniary jurisdiction. The learned Judge further held that burden is on the defendant to substantiate that court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7990 WP No. 101071 of 2024

¶27

Having recorded the above finding, the learned

¶28

Judge ought to have noticed that there is plea that suit is not properly valued and it is intentionally undervalued. Though petitioner/defendant at para 10 does not specifically contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, the learned Judge ought to have framed an issue casting burden on the petitioner/defendant. If the plea is taken that the suit is not maintainable, the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application in part and an issue needs to be framed.

¶29

It is the defendant who has raised a contention in the written statement that the suit is not maintainable as plaint is not properly valued. The learned Judge shall frame appropriate issue casting burden on the petitioner/defendant and thereafter proceed to decide the case, in accordance with law.

¶30

For the forging reasons, this court passes the

¶31

following:

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7990 WP No. 101071 of 2024

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶35

ii) The learned Judge shall frame an issue casting burden on the petitioner/defendant and thereafter proceed to decide the case, in accordance with law.

¶36

iii) It is made clear that petitioner/defendant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments henceforth.

¶37

In view of dispose of the writ petition, I.A.No.2/2024

¶38

does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed off.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Channappa M/O Huligemma v. Vinodabai W/O Shrinivas Pathak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channappa M/O Huligemma v. Vinodabai W/O Shrinivas Pathak

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

Smt. Gouramma W/O Veerappa Doddamani Vs Smt. Ningavva W/O Ulavappa Nellikoppa

Omkargouda S/O Gadigeppagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ramathirth Polypacks Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Canara Bank

Hanumanthappa S/O Thippanna Vs B K Hanumanthappa S/O Late Bheemappa

Shri Vithal S/O Annappa Khot Vs Smt. Akkatai W/O Ganapati Khot

Shri Devendra Aliyas Devappa S/O Ranu Ghevadi Aliyas Ghevade Vs Shri Appayya S/O Mallu Shelar