Sri Y B Ramesh S/O. Late Y Bhaskaracharya vs Smt Varalakshmi W/O. M B Byata Rao on 23 April, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Y B Ramesh S/O. Late Y Bhaskaracharya vs Smt Varalakshmi W/O. M B Byata Rao on 23 April, 2010

Bench: B.Manohar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KMQNATAKA, BAN GALORE

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF APRIL, 201,0»:

BEFORE

THE H0N'I3LE MR. JUSTIC_E.,B_._MAN"O'HEARE":  E'  E

WRIT PETITION NO.4211/;'Z()O~[$3[(3;Mi(3'P(:2:)'  

BETWEEN

1

SRI.Y.B.RA1\/IESH, 

s/0. LATE YBHASKARAC
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, '-- _ _ 
RESIDING AT NO.38/H_31,._V [ E'
24TH MAIN ROAD,   I
 050.     ':.-JDETITIDNER

{BY   A

£.!.,N....12.I. .

1

SMT.VARALAI{S.E1vI_I';  E
W/D' M. B'. BYA'i'A RAO,
D/O LATE T.¥{:KR_IMSHNAPPA,

A E  .AGED?AE'0UT 52 YEARS.

I ,R;'A'i'aMA'IfASANDRA,

 - 1. TLTRUVEKERP3 TALUK,

ITUMKUIRE:D1AsTRIcT.
SMT,

 W/O LATE ,M.N.PU'I'I'AHAR1YAPPA.

I 'AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
   'E/AT MADHUGIRI,

"TUMKUR DISTRICT.



$3"

Sm.T. NA.

S / O LATE T.R.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT RAJADHANI BUILDING,
OPPOSYFE TO CANARA BANK,
DRRAJKUMAR ROAD,

NEAR NAVARANG CHITRAMANDTRA,  V'

RAJAJINAGARA, 
BANGALORE660 010.

SRI.T.SHANKARAPPA,  
S/O LATE T.R.KRISHNAPPA;    
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,  _  'V 
R/AT JAYAMMA BUILDING,  . A ~  

8TH CROSS, AGRAHARA 

MAGAD1 ROAD.   A 
BANGALORE-~'§6--Q 0:79. 

SMT.N.ALINi{" A

w/OLATE=T.K.RANO;ANNA,%f%"LV
AGED ABOZ}'l'V4jQ A A

SR1.T.R;NAO-TEN  
S/O LATE 'T.,K;RANGANNA,

 , '_ AVGED__ABOUT'}.4..__YEARS,

_ A ;SR1.Tv..R»OH'ANDRA MOULI,
A-. i S go' LATE Tf.-KRANGANNA.
AGED ABQUT 12 YEARS.

THE..RE_SPONDENTS No.6 AND 7

 ARE MINORS AND REPRESENTED BY

"» THEIR NATURAL GOARDIAN, A

  M   FRIEND AND MOTHER
A "  SMT.NAL1N1, THE RESPONDENT NO.5

"5 THE RESPONDENTS NO.'5 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT THIRUMALE, MAGADI TOWN.

8 SRI.T.K.I-IIREYANNA, S / O LATE T. RKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

RESIDING AT TI-IIRUMALE, MAGADI TOWN.

9 SMTKALPANA, D/O LATE T.R.KRISHNAPPA.,._ W/O RRAGHAVENDRA, * AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO C4116, * QUARTERS, _ KUNJADHBAIL, A MANGALORE.=. A - ..*. RESPONDENTS (BY E ' AiD@E;+A}£¥++++ THIS. ..DP'ET'ITION.'..FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 THE xCO'N'STITU'I'ION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TBE"012DER DT. 17.12.2008 IN SUIT O.S.NO.82 OF 200% "pRDD%.';cED"" AS A1\ENEX~H AND CONSEQUENTLY ,:"m,LoW'*AAATH1;3 ';%,}§15LICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER As

-I ANNEx;;i:.

5/"

no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In support of his contention, the petitioner has contenddedethat the market vaiue of the suit schedule property Rs.15,80,000/-- (Rupees fifteen iakhsmand eighty:*'th'oi1saIid);' Therefore, 1/ 71311 share of the sch'eduie .. Rs.2,25,000/--. Hence, the 1e_an_1ed"'CiVyi}.V aviialgeuetthegs dines. pecuniary jurisdiction to try and e_nteifta.in the

3. The plaintiff filed oibj;.ecti_ons" to the. said" application contending that the learned' [Jr.Dn.) has pecuniary suit and the suit is maintainabvieppid ihepentention of the defendant that as on the date fiiing.vofAthe."sVuit, the market value of the suit dddd Nnriore than Rs.15,80,000/-- is not hVI'eari1ed Civil Judge can maintain the suit. Judge by his order dated }.7'--12~2008 'the said application holding that the said court pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in W View of the amendment to Karnataka Civil Court Act_,__ 1964 which came into effect from 20-8-2007 wherein the ' L jurisdiction of the Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.) is Vv Rs.5,00,000/--. Being aggrieved:-<"by-.0 the '4«'dat'eA(iu' 00 17--~12~--2008 made on 1.A.No.i, the Writ petition.

4. Sri.L.M.Ramaiah appearing for the petitioner contentied of ﬁling of the suit i.e. on (Jr.Dn.] has no pecuniary9j1irise'iietioi:'i4VVV' suit, but in View of subsequent'«egnaehdigﬁeiﬁ§iej:ed° 28-8-2007, the Civil Judge [Jr.Dn.) has got" pecuniary jiiirisdiction. Hence, the suit filed is notvvurneintainable and the order passed by the» is contrary to law and facts and 'nwsf}ught"for s_etti:in'gA0aside the order dated 17~--12-2008.

5. Per contra, Sri.T.N.Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent/ plaintiff contended; View of the amendment to Karnataka Civil Cor.-;.:1:'t 20-8-2007, the Civil Judge [dr';'E';n..} peeeeaeyi it jurisdiction. He further contended law to be applied for detenniningv..0the jurvistdietioil dtlheslcourtl whether law existing on th~e_'date""oi the suit or on the date on which the .Afor"'hearing is to be applied as held by in a judgement reported in 20cis(tiij" SUDHIR GANGUR AND oTHI3Rs' OTHERS. Hence, there is no infinnitp ind by the learned Civil Judge [J1".Dn.) Magadif

6. considered the arguments addressed by lxwdthe ediinsel for the petitioner as well as the and perused the order passed by the learned 'Judge (Jr.Dn.) and other necessary documents. /3»

7. The undisputed facts that the piaintiff fi1e'd'-na:«.¢j:suit seeking for I /731 share in the suit seheduie 931 defendant contended that the mat'-k"ét"va1'u.e of''the_orofie1;ty ' is more than Rs.15,80,000/-- and 1/'fi*?__ property exceeds Rs.2,25,000 hence, it Civiii Judge [Jr.Dn.) has no pecuniary"ijufiisdiction the suit. The suit has been filed on iAthue'_'rneanwhi1e, the Karnataka Civil C3ot:i7t:_Act igot; 2007 wherein the pecuniary Civil' Judge (Jr.Dn.) was enhanced to of that, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Di'i.} has peceifniargtijnzfisdietion to try the suit. addressed by the learned counsel forithevpetitione1'uisthat as on the date of filing of the suit, the kcourt has no jurisdiction and hence, the plaint has to be tti'iee;.ee:ee%sneer Order 7 Rule 11(d) of cpc. The issue regar'dii1g"é1aw to be applied in determining the jurisdiction of /£«~ the court i.e. the law as existing on the date of institution of the suit or on the date on which, the suit came up has to be applied. The Hon'b1e Supreme Court 4' cited supra held as under:

" In our View submitting that it is the the date of; the suit which is to be _ Iii ofvithis submission, i\/Ir.Sari§i1~i judgihent in Shiv Bhagwan Ishar Dassi' _w.h'erein;:'it no party has a vested to a parti_eLiiar proceeding or to a partic'"u1£if'i:forﬁfm. beciiiheld that it is well settled that iaws are retrospective uniessid '1egisiatui'e:Vii"eicpressly states to the contrary. hasvbeeii that the procedural laws ' izviiioroe 11<1ustAbe"'app1ied at the date when the suit ' V:vor..pr0ceediﬁg__comes on for trial or disposai. it has a court is bound to take notice of the the law and is bound to administer the as it was when the suit came up for ihearing. It has been held that if a court has "juriisdiction to try the suit. when it comes on for /V E0 disposal, it then cannot refuse to assume jurisdiction by reason of the fact that it had. jurisdiction to entertain it at the date when "

instituted. We are in complete agreement these observations. As statedabove, Act now stands repeated. It that not the Court has jurisdicti.oii to this suit."

9. In View of the pron'o.tincemt§I1vt"'thaw by the I-{on'b1e Supreme Court, the petitionerf.is'*not for any relief. Further, even _the_«--C_iv'i} Vzifudge [Jr.Dn.) has no pecuniary:jtiris'dit§tioii§:'fVto suit, at the most, the Court can the'«the plaintiff to present before the apprg3piiate"'court...'- View of the amendment to the Civil ?t'he"Cpivi1 (JR.Dn.), Magadi is the competent con-rtvttoiitrjifthpe and hence, I.A.No.I. ﬁled by the petitioner 9' V 'cannot=be er: tertained. ﬁg'/J.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I a.m.___of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out ._to interfere with the order passed by the Iearnerj [Jr.Dn.). Accordingly, there is no r;1erit«inﬂpetition j' and the same is hereby dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court