Karnataka High Court
Sri C P Babu Reddy vs Sri N C Govindaraju on 3 April, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.41008/2012 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C. P. BABU REDDY
S/O. C. PAPAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SMT PADMAJA DEVI
W/O. C. P. BABU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
3. SRI B RAVI
S/O. C. P. BABU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A MAKALI VILLAGE
HAROHALLI HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M RAMASWAMY, ADV.,)
AND
1. SRI. N. C. GOVINDARAJU
S/O. LATE CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A NO.60, 7TH CROSS
60 FEET ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
J. C. NAGAR, BANGALORE-86.
2
2. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O. LATE CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/A NO.186, 1ST STAGE
K H B COLONY, 2ND MAIN ROAD
BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-5600798.
3. SRI. SRINIVASAIAH
S/O. LATE CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/A NO.60, 7TH CROSS
60 FEET ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
J. C. NAGAR, BANGALORE-86.
4. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O. B. H. GANESH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A NO.2, 7TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, J. C. NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560086.
5. SMT. SHOWBHAGYAMMA
W/O. LATE SEETHARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A NO.16, VENKATASWAMAPPA
COMPOUND, KORAMANAGALA 1ST BLOCK
BANGALORE-560034.
6. SMT. N. C. SUVARNA
W/O. M. ANATHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A NO.14, 27TH MAIN ROAD
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM J C NAGAR
BANGALORE-560086.
7. SMT VENKATAMMA
W/O A N RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/A NO.66, 2ND CROSS
VIVEKANANDA COLONY
BANASHANKARI
3
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560078.
8. SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKA NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YERS
R/A DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
SINCE DEAD BY LRS NAMELY,
a. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI
W/O LATE RAMCHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
b. SRI NARAYANA
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
c. SRI PRASHANTHA
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
(a) TO (c) ARE RESIDENT OF
DOMMASANDRA VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
9. SRI MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PROPRIETOR OF SUPER TALKIES
COTTONPET MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560002
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS NAMELY
a) SMT JAYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
4
b) SMT. R. M. BHAGYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O G THYAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.5, P.S.LANE,
6TH CROSS, COTTONPET
BANGALORE-560053.
c) SRI. R. M. LOKESH
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
d) SRI R M MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
e) SRI R M HARISH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
(a) TO (e) ARE R/AT NO.82/1
ITI COLONY, 7TH CROSS, IST PHASE
J P NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.
10. SRI D RAMAIAHA
S/O DUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/A YATTAKODI VILLAGE
LAKKUR HOBLI
MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 15.9.2012
PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT
AT MALUR IN O.S. NO.260/2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
Respondents 1 to 6 instituted O.S.No.260/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC at Malur against respondents 7 to 10 and the petitioners, to pass a decree for partition and separate possession of 1/9th share out of the plaint schedule properties. The petitioners are the purchasers of certain items of properties from respondents 7 and 8. Written statements were filed. Based on the pleadings, issues have been raised. A preliminary issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court having been raised, after trial, was answered in the affirmative. However, the plaint was not returned for presentation to the competent court, since by the date the order was passed, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court was enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5 lakhs. As a result, the learned Trial Judge granted liberty to the plaintiffs to proceed with the case before itself. Assailing the said order, defendants 9 to 11 have filed this writ petition. 6
2. Sri. M.Ramaswamy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that, on the date the plaint was presented, the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction and hence, the plaint ought to have been returned and instead, the course adopted by the trial Court is irrational. Learned counsel submitted that there is no uniform action on the part of the learned Trial Judge.
3. Perused the writ petition record.
4. Issue relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court was tried as a preliminary issue. The trial Court has found that the value of the plaintiffs share is Rs.3,42,020/-. As on the date the suit was instituted, the trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs.50,000/-. However, the Civil Courts Act having been amended and the amendment having come into force with effect from 28.08.2007, pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court having been enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs, the trial Court is justified in granting permission to the 7 plaintiffs to proceed with the case instituted before it, since even after return of the plaint, the plaintiffs have to represent the plaint in the very Court itself, which would not serve any purpose. The date of presentation of the plaint would be the original date and not the returned date, if any. No prejudice as such has occasioned to the defendants on account of the impugned order, since the trial Court's jurisdiction has got enhanced to Rs.5 lakhs with effect from 28.08.2007 and suit can lie in the trial Court itself.
In the said view of the matter, no interference in the impugned order is warranted. Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca