IN mm HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DATED mxs THE 16TH DAY.QF._5EPfI'ENI§f1L'i§";: Qokosi * V BEFORE 3' ' THE HODPBLE MI?i,v';1'§IS'i;i(3lf§) 3.%S;1>Af;~iL. W.P.NO:..1206:6_1éG08'£.GM-§CPC}A BETWEEN S/o Late " Aged abou§c"45..yé~;a:f§.' " ' » S/0 . Aged abput 42 " 3.sri. B1aéenia:a11,% * S/opaiigaiah; " '~ 42 yéa1'--'s.« " ' <=}:~.V h, Agrgd abput:1.f§2 years. ' '..,Petjtio:1é:s I to 4 are '- R/o__2nd"Cross, Maralur Dinne, j * _"A1'*..V1_m_,AkL11*-5'72 10 1. T " (By Sri.M. B.Chandra Che-oda, Ad.\.r::)cat .) Petitioners AND 1. Sri.Hanumanaraeaia§:, S / 0 late Narasimhaiah, Aged about 50 years, R/at 21"' Cross, Maralur Dinne, 'I'umkur~572 101. 2. Sri.AnjiI1appa, S / 0 late Narasimhaiah, Aged about 45 years, . R/0 23¢ Crosa' « ., ~ Maralur Diane, ' Tumkur-«S772 101. _ ' % ' :RESPONDENTS
This ‘WPiS:»»fflcfl’–.under”Artic1es 226 and 227 of the
Constituf;i0I1V”prayf3ng’to’q11aSh”‘the order dated 16-8-2008
passed’ oz}. .the’–‘a.d(iit:ioné1…_issue in O.S.No.63/1999 on the
file of the ..J:udge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Tumkur,
Vide Annexu1’c~F-. . ‘
V’ ._i ‘T135 on for preliminary hearing this
V’ .day, matie the following:
” petition, petitioners are challenging the
‘*.,order 16-8-2008 passed by the Principal Civil Judge,
‘ & JMFC, Tumkur in O.S.No.63/1999. By the said
. V. : Q’1*der, the Court below has recorded a finding in the
affirmative on the issue regarding the T
jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain *
2. The suit is filed during the 5z*ea;.**’.4’i9§;;”gV~Tf¢ff paxeeenjep
and separate possession of the by
respondent No.1 herein. hereiii
having aPP€ared P11rSL!§i»I1t1.wAitoieniiieisigmfioiis”issued filed
written statement basecil-1 issues were
framed as bajacieres ore on, the petitioners
sought statement to contend
that jurisdiction to try
the égiaddifiond issue relafing to the
‘eras raised. The said issue was
. issue and evidence was recorded.
petitioners herein placed reliance
ori 1 is a document issued by the Senior Sub-
‘4 M if of ‘I’u.1:nkur wherein the particulars of the value of
fiie’ :)i’opert:y in the village were mentioned with reference to
‘T year }.998-1999 and 1999-2000. Except producing the
said document, the petitioners did not choose to place
before the Court any other material. The et’ide1}t2§?§ A’ the
author of the said document was not’_.1_.ed’_i in
circumstances, the Court beloxégf tor.
hold that the defendants .faii_e-d £o.eiproye..
issue raised regarding the jerfisdicfion in
the Court A _ AA
4. Learned. assaiiing the
order under. 1 was sufiicient
for the it lacked pecuniary
jurisdiction’ ‘e.tr1p1j?’vti:emoIistrated the value of the lands
Havirnig” considered the contention of the
“eoa_ifise1 for the petitioners and the reasons
Court below, i do not find arxy illegality or
error of jtfiisdiefion committee by the Court below which
it if’ interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
flee below has held that mere production of Ex.D.1
‘bu did not tantamount to disehargng the burden cast upon
the defendant to show that the value of the properties was
fie