Dismissed

Swamygowda v. Kalamma W/O Govindegowda Dead by Her Lrs

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2024WP/967/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner challenged the trial court’s order holding the court had pecuniary jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner failed to produce valuation documents before the High Court despite claiming the property value was insufficient.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to substantiate the claim of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction by producing valuation documents.

Swamygowda Vs Kalamma W/O Govindegowda Dead by Her Lrs — Partition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SWAMYGOWDA S/O THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT KANGALU VILLAGE, HARANAHALLY HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 107.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMU V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KALAMMA

¶13

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N W/O GOVINDEGOWDA Location: high DEAD BY HER L.RS., court of karnataka

¶14

K.G. PADMA W/O SRIDHAR R., AND D/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA R/AT KANAGALU VILLAGE, HARANAHALLY HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 107.

¶15

NINGAMMA, W/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶17

R/AT KANGALUR VILLAGE HARANAHALLY HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571107 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶18

NARASAMMA W/O PUTTEGOWDA D/O THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT RUDRAPATTANA VILLAGE, RAMANATAHAPURA HOBLI ARKALAGUD TALUK - 573102.

¶19

SANNATHAYAMMA W/O SHIVANNA D/O LATE THIMMEOGWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT GOBLIVLLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK- 573102.

¶20

RACHAMMA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT RAJANABILAGULLI VILLAGE HARANAHALLY HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TQ - 571107.

¶21

¶22

THANGAMMA W/O RAJEGOWDA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT GOBLIVLLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARKALAGUD TALUK- 573102.

¶23

SHARADAMMA W/O KALEGOWDA D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA R/AT KANGALU VILLGE,

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶25

HARANHALLY HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK- 577107 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶26

SANTHEGOWDA

¶27

S/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT KANGALU VILLAGE HARANHALLY HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK- 577107 MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶28

JAYAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA D/O LT THIMMEGWDA DEAD BY LRS.,

¶29

9a. JAVARAMMA W/O KARIGOWDA D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶30

9b. SAKAMMA

¶31

W/O SHIVANNEGOWDA D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶32

9c. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶33

9A TO 9C ARE RESIDING AT JAVANKUPPE VILLAGE, RAVANDURHOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK- 571 107.

¶34

9d. GOWRAMMA W/O SURESH D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT HOSAKOPPALU VILLAGE

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶36

HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK- 571 106.

¶37

9e. NAGAMMA W/O LATE JAGADEESH D/O LATE RAMEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS.,

¶38

9e1. PAVITHRA, W/O DHARMA D/O NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS KADNOOR KOPPLU VILLGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGUD TALUK- 573 102.

¶39

9e2. LATHA W/O RAJU D/O NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NADAPANAHALLI VILLAGE BILIKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 105.

¶40

JAVARAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA D/O LATE NINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A KADVINA HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KONANUR HOBLI ARAKALAGODU TALUK- 573102.

¶41

SAVITHRI, W/O. NAGENDRA D/O NINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT THORENURHEBBALE VILLAGE KUSHALANAGARA HOBLI SOMAVARAPETE TQ COORGE DISTRICT- 571 236.

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶43

MANJEGOWDA K. G. S/O LATE GOVINDEOGWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT KANAGALU VILLAGE HARANAHALLY HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK- 571 107.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. LOURDU MARIYAPPA A.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 (VC); V/O. DATED 22.11.22, R2 to R12- D/W)

¶46

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 28.09.2021 PASSED ON ISSUE NO.5 (PRELIMINARY ISSUE) PASSED IN O.S.NO.115/2010, ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PIRIYAPATNA VIDE ANNX-L AND IN TURN ALLOW THE APPLICATION.

¶47

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

Defendant No.7 in O.S.No.115/2010 is seeking grant of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.09.2021 passed on preliminary issue No.5, holding that defendants No.4, 6, 8 and 9 (a) to (d) have failed to prove issue No.5 and the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

¶50

Heard Sri.Ramu V., learned counsel for the

¶51

petitioner and Sri.Lourdu Mariyappa A., learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent as plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.115/2010 for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. Petitioner being defendant No.7 filed the written statement denying the contentions taken in the plaint and also contending that the schedule properties are not properly valued. Accordingly, issue No.5 was framed by the trial Court regarding the proof of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit.

¶55

The defendant examined himself as DW1 and produced as many as 15 documents including valuation made by the Sub-Registrar. In spite of that, the trial Court proceeded to answer issue No.5 in the negative holding that the Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶56

Learned counsel submitted that item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties consisting of house properties, but the same are not described in the schedule. The properties were described as if it is an agricultural property. If the house

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶59

properties situated in item Nos.1 and 2 are valued, the Court will not have the pecuniary jurisdiction.

¶60

Learned counsel also submitted that defendant No.7 had filed I.A.No.14 seeking appointment of the Court Commissioner to assess the value of the house properties situated in item Nos.1, 2, 5 to 8 and the said application was also came to be dismissed. Under such circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition to hold that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction by answering preliminary issue No.5 in the affirmative.

¶61

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondentplaintiff opposing the petition submitted that the trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record and answered preliminary issue No.5. There are no reasons to interfere with the same. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶62

Perused the materials on record.

¶63

Even though petitioner contends that DW1 was examined and as many as 15 documents are produced in support of his claim on plaintiff No.5, no such documents are produced before this Court. Even though IA No.14 filed under

¶64

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶65

Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was dismissed refusing to appoint the Court Commissioner to assess the value of the building, the said order was never challenged.

¶66

The petitioner is defendant No.7 in the suit O.S. No.115/2010 filed for partition and separate possession. The petitioner is having only one share in the schedule property. He has taken a defence in the written statement that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as the suit properties are not properly valued. Accordingly, issue No.5 was framed, viz., whether the defendant Nos.4, 6, 8 and 9(a) to (d) prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said issue was considered as preliminary issue. It is stated that the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D15 in support of his contention. Copies of those materials are not placed before this Court. The trial Court while passing the impugned order made a specific observation that the learned counsel for defendant has not produced any cogent documents to show the market value of the properties to convince the Court. Under such circumstance, I do not find any substance in the contentions taken by the petitioner.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:7722 WP No. 967 of 2022

¶69

In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the

¶70

petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed .

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

Paga Nos.1 to 9 - AP Para Nos.10 to 11 - VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Swamygowda v. Kalamma W/O Govindegowda Dead by Her Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swamygowda v. Kalamma W/O Govindegowda Dead by Her Lrs

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 Appaiah D N Vs Nanjundappa

K N Praveen Kumar Vs the Tahsildar

M/S Kalyani Motors Private Limited Vs Sri Krishnappa L

Smt Jayalakshmi Vs Sri Muniyappa

Sri Ashok Kumar Vs Sri G Mohan

Smt Lakshmidevamma Vs President Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd.