mi: T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER
THE HONBLE MR.JUST§CE ANAND A'
WRIT PET§TION N0.956:3/ 'V:
BETWEEN:
SriT1'1uiasidas J Vasani, _
S/0 Jagajeeva, aged 69..Yea1f8';" * Z'
Represented by his p0we'r_0f_ " '
Attorney holder A ° "
Bharath T Vasani, . A
Aged 36 year_s,*»._ "_' 1.
Residing 1_._426«e. ' 2 _ V
81" cross, Koiajda'S11a.1'1'dh-i_Beeidhi,
Lushka_r%__MOhal1é.;,.,v _, V' "
Mysore. A A PETETIONER
(By Advocate)
. 1} « Srnt, Shixfamma,
e__.1\}'£;1jb1: O Sh_ii_I'_anna,
R,esiding D.No.3753.
Veeran a;ge.1fe , '
V Lashka'r_'M'0ha1ia,
Basavanagaradi Beedhi,
A A f ~. Nlysgre.
T Bheerna Rae,
so
Major. r/o
D.No.908. Ashoka road,
4"? cross, Lashkar Mohalla,
Mysore.
3. Gayathri,
Major,
4.M.R.Korna1a,
major,
5. M.R.Latha.,
major,
3 to 5 are Residing at ~
If).No.2838. Pampathi Roa.'c1,"' " -
Jayanagar, Mysore. ' RESPONDENTS
{By Shrik Adi/'oe':ite for
respondent no};
Shri N.K.Harish, ilfor respondents 3 and 5]
Ttxis Wr1t..V_15etition is filed under Articles 226 and
of%,t%the'vi.Constitution of India with a prayer to quash
._ .th€. _orc_1er_djate:1 18.4.2007 in O.S.NO.588/92 passed by
o___ti'1e_ Principv;1£~Fii.tst Civil Judge [Junior Division) at Mysore
vid'e.V.An'riexL_1r*e¥A and etc.
Tfi.is.'xWrit Petition coming on for Preliminary
-._«.__V'~1'iearirigV__:'in 'B' group this day, the Court made the
' ..f'..foiiowing:,:--
{S
ORDER
The present petition is filed by the defend’an’t;.nQ.6
in a pending suit.
2. The plaintiff having sought for a.
that the decree in a Civii suit, O.,_S.A1.\f”o”.’ 34;,’
not binding on the plaintiff -«had
suit and had paid the co;ift.i:’feVe. .’;’31A1hseqvi;1ent1y, it
transpires that therevwas _ai1L a{r,nendLn1:e’n,t to the plaint to
challenge two ciifferenii’ deeds’, ..U’1(§xC:?'(“)i:IlbiI1€d value of
Wi’1iCh:’;vv exceed-&:d.__::”Rs’;€i;’0.Q,OOO/- and therefore, an
objectionflwas J the defendant that if the
eonsiiderationw”shown’ under the sale deeds which were
.s’ou_ghtto -bxe~–,set aside is taken into account. the suit
“”‘;’F¢.V1.A-1’d. the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial
-V Cosfrt… This sbjeetien was considered by the trial Court
it V’ VantC1~..it. held that insofar as the relief agairist the sale
‘ deeds are concerned, it does not seek cancellation of the
Z
sale deeds but is restricted to have the sale deeds
declared as not binding on the plaintiff and that they are
null and void and unenforceable, etc. and therefore;i..V_the
trial Court proceeded to hold that the
valued on the plaint allegatiions l'”oi’1_ the”.
subsequent events and furtherjgthatrthe’*sale”deedgfire
executed subsequent to t7rie”‘–fi.11ng”of the –~isinCe.l’
the suit prayer is only to havell’the’Vsale deeds declared as
not binding on the””-pllaintifff unenforceable, the
question of valuing the purposes of
pecuniaijr jiirisdictitwn’ would “”r1’o’t arise.
3. ‘l’i’1is,» one-the’fac’e,_of it, is an incorrect reasoning.
‘1’he_§adr,nitted’ rcircuniistance that the sale deeds in
were sought to be questioned by way of
H arr1.evrid’mle*nVt,’tilde consideration under the respective sale
deeds ouglit, to have been taken into consideration, for
2 t1’hVe.. purposes of valuation, in which event, the pecuniary
fiirisdiction of the trial Coggi being a maximum of
‘.1!
Rs.5,OO,000/W, the suit was required to be returned to
be presented before the appropriate Cour’t”v.s:3fii.aV*iVng
jurisdiction.
4. The Counsel for the responden:tA_Ais’ee1{s
the present status of the and on its”
own motion has returned thie’*;:)ia–int»tjto the’€ou’rt having
jurisdiction, there ‘A as for any such
adjournment, order:u::ider”*el;a1Iei:ge being patently
in error, the:_”w’r’i’t3I.__pe’titioh viaiivowed. The order at
Annexure~A isCju’asI?,ed:::f:’§V’H1e”trial is directed to
return the plaint be pire;-‘{entediVi’i)ei’ore the Court having
the pecuniary jurisdiction to deaiivvith the matter.
…..
IUDGE