RSA N0.1507 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'
BEFORE C C C
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs*T1cfi{3;,S'.1=ATij:' 'V T:
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL N'oA.CI5O7/2.Ci,O'7C {:NJ)°w
BETWEEN:
Shri M0hammadrafiq1;;é';..
S/0 Allauddin Mujawar; C' .
Age: 33 years, Qcc: Agri.cjL_11--ture,.Vb "
R/0: Hukkeri_,._' V '
T31: Hukke:fii;.59j!A3_]T.3, "
Dist: Beig€iuIT1':----. ...APPELLANT
(By SrAiV." Ancflffibézate)
AN DVVET " V' C
1. The state of K;mA:eT_£aT;a,
the Deputy C01T1missior1er,
. ..... .. «
H 2 .xTheVV Psinchayat Hukkeri,
A itS Officer,
HuK1;eriw591313,
A DiSt.:V__Be1gaum. ...RESPONDENTS
‘–,(By Ravi.S.Ba1ikai, Advocate for caveator–R2)
RSA N0.1507 of 2007
This regular second appeal is filed under Section
100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgnient
and decree dated 28.03.2007 passed in R.A.No.3ji’,/20.04
on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.);*’*’–Hnk}{eri”,
dismissing the appeal and confirming the
decree 17.04.2004 passed in O.S.No.479/–.1.98V9*–on, the”
file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) l~iu-kkeri. ‘ V .
This regular second apipeali 0′ ,
admission this day, the CoU.r’t-._delivered thee.fol’1povving: J V
Junemaggl
Learned Governrnent lPlelader_is_’.:’directed to take
notice for respoiident No.1
in short compas, the same is
taken tip’ for with the consent of the
parties.
‘ a regular second appeal filed invoking
Siection the Code of Civil Procedure challenging
lquthe and decree passed by the learned Civil
iuTJgag¢(sn Dnq Hukken,ini1Aim131/2004cfisnnsmng
RSA No.1507 of 2007
the appeal and confirming the dismissal of the suit filed
in O.S.No.479/1989.
4. The appellant was the plaintiff _
Court. The suit was filed by
title over the suit schedule»propert;tV_lla_*id
injunction and, in the for”po:s’ses.sfion. The
suit schedule propertiitfipi denoted by
letters ‘A, B, R, situated at
Gajabalwadli if itoizvn. The plaintiff
based properties on the
registered by the previous owner
during the-piiand on the gift deed dated
24_:€i6.:1_i97 ei<e'cut_ed.vby the plaintiffs grandfather in his
5;' 2nd defendant§Town Panchayat, Hukkeri,
it res_iste'd.the suit contending inter alia that the suit was
°not'"lrnaintainab1e as no legal notice as contemplated
"under Section 284 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act
RSA No.1507 of 2007
was issued and for non–compliance of requirernent
stipulated under Section 80 of the Code
Procedure. The description of the suit '
by the plaintiff was also denied,:.ap'art
gift deed dated 24.06.1976
claims title to the propertyi Egjritendecg .
that the suit properties were gran1"a*thana of
Gajabarawadi ownedll the Town
Panchayat, that the
documents did not pertain to
the p A V
framed necessaiy issues
regardintg V't'itle.l'ofT the plaintiff and his actual
"and, in the alternative, of entitlement for
"'po~ls,_session_. Ajn""issue regarding maintainability for want
of ri'otie'e.u:ider Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
3 Section 284 of the Karnataka Municipality Act also
to be framed. An additional issue with regard to
'4':
RSA N0.15{)7 of 2007
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court was also
framed.
‘7. Parties having let in oral and
evidence, the Trial Court, on consideratioyziioify
documentary evidence, dismissed
while defendant No.2 had
to Show that the property in of the
grama thana, the plaintiff to any
satisfactory evidence title over the
property. As since
the deposed in the chief
exalninationiithat “property ~ subject matter of the
“va1u_evmore than Rs.1,00,000/– and as
the” said_Vas’sert–i_on made in the evidence had not been
cha.1iengedi*Vi.b’y.h:’the plaintiff in the cross–exarnination, the
i’._CiviiiJ1V.idge (Jr. Dn.) had no pecuniary jurisdiction to
”:.entertain the suit. Though the Trial Court found that it
had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, in
s
RSA N0.1507 of 2007
respect of other issues which were framed, the_fl’ria1
Court returned findings on merits holding
plaintiff failed to establish his title or
the property. Accordingly, suit it
dismissed. V I 2 2 V l in it
8. The lower Appellate,Cp.urt ” it
the question regarding llthe ‘findings
recorded by the Trial ‘A the lack of
pecuniary conclusion
that the inholding that it had
no in the matter. It has also
found that.._4.sincle.th:e’ Court had gone into the
‘_ merits of” the easeand had appreciated the evidence on
record ar1d:r.et’urned findings on all other issues, in the
light” of A ‘l-ltije?’ decision rendered in the case of
lV..ppT.H.ll/asvlluztizanta and others vs. ‘I’.J.Jagadeesh & Others
s«1ijré:pio’r«:ed in ILR 1999 KAR 2924, it had to be held that
there was no failure of justice. The lower Appellate
RSA N0.1507 of 2007
Court found that the plaintiff had acquiesced in and, at
any rate, the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction did
the root of the matter as the parties had ‘
on merits. Having recorded such” its
Appellate Court ought to have
of the findings on other ilTriali’i
Court. . is u V 2 1
9. In the background of the substantial
question of iaviz that is,
” _b’elow erred in
i(.liSI_1’1iSiSiiI1g.__’tl1e the ground of lack of
pecu’niaIj,§ in the trial Court?”
10. Both_:itheF learned counsel have addressed their
on the ‘substantial question of law framed.
‘ .,11.,_’i~t:h,as.__to be stated here that the defendants also
led. e’videnc-eofiimerits and the Trial Court did not choose
igto con.sid_er the question of lack of jurisdiction as a
§r;re1ii12_.inary issue and, in such circumstances, it has to be
.4
RSA No.1507 of 2007
held that both the parties had acquiesced the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court. At any rate, since’~.th’e_g’Trial
Court had addressed the matter on merits
no justification for the lower .
suit by recording a finding on
Since the question of pecuniaryjurisdititioni rhatter
that goes to the root’ of iniiithsgffacts and
circumstances of the ftpp–el1ate Court was
well advised t.o-ideal before it. It
ought to ,a.li the issues on which
the Trial Court by re-
appreciating record. Having failed to make
such an exer”ci.se; the Cl-ovifer Appellate Court erred in law in
and decree under challenge
thfe-(suit on the ground of lack of pecuniary
jurisdictioiiin the Trial Court. At any rate mere assertion
the defendant in his evidence stating that the property
lt’w.asv;1ued more than Rs.l,O0,000/– cannot be made the
basis to hoid that, the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction.