Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.74 seconds)Sri Abdul Wajid vs Sri A S Onkarappa on 27 December, 2010
NC: 2023:KHC:42739
CRP No. 611 of 2023
C/W CRP NO. 630 of 2023,
CRP NO. 633 of 2023
limits of the Small Causes Court can be entertained by the
Small Causes Court but if it spills over the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/-, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction. The
learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Abdul Wajid v. A.S.Onkarappa
reported in ILR 2011 KAR 229 and contended that jurisdiction
being a threshold test, has to be examined with respect to the
reliefs sought for in the suit and not in vaccum. He contended
that the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court as founded by
the Full Bench is limited to examine whether there exists a
relationship of landlord and tenant and if the answer is in the
affirmative then the question, whether the relationship is
properly terminated in accordance with law would be
considered. He contended that a perusal of the plaint filed by
the defendants in O.S No.3858/2016 and the written statement
filed in O.S No.3840/2018 and others discloses that the
defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property
and therefore the suit is more or less for the recovery of
possession based on title and hence it is the Civil Court which
has jurisdiction.
Karnataka Rent Act, 1999
Section 8 in Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Ramesh P. Seth vs M.S. Krishna Murthy And Anr. on 5 September, 2001
He referred to the judgment
of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh
P.Seth v. M.S.Krishna Murthy and Another reported in ILR
2002 KAR 565 and contended that this Court held in
paragraph No.6 which reads as follows:
Section 41 in Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs Dlf Universal & Anr on 26 September, 2005
10. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the
judgment in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF
Universal Ltd and another reported in (2005) 7 SCC 791
and contended that the parties cannot vest jurisdiction and
though objections regarding territorial and pecuniary
jurisdiction had to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity
where the Court has no jurisdiction, the same could be assailed
at any stage of the proceedings.
Article 4 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1