IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1383 OF 2016 Between:
Smt.Chennamma, Wife of Sri.Munishamappa, Aged about 90 years, Residing at Kumbara Street, Hesaragatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru – 560088. …Appellant (By Sri.S.V.Bhat, Adv. for Sri C.G.Gopalaswamy, Adv.) And:
Smt.Jayamma, Adopted daughter of Wife of Sri.Munishamappa, Aged about 70 years, Residing at Linganahalli village, Hesaragatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru – 560088. …Respondent This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC., 1908 against the order dated: 04.02.2016 passed in FDP No.20/2010 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru (R) District, Bengaluru, allowing the petition filed under Section 54 read with Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC., to pass final decree in the case.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Heard the appellant’s counsel on office objections. The office objection is that this appeal is not maintainable here in this Court because according to Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, the valuation of the plaintiff’s share in the subject matter of the suit for partition is Rs.7,50,000/- and the appeal has to be filed before the District Court.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that suit for declaration and partition was dismissed by the trial Court and the said decree was challenged by the respondent herein before this Court in RFA No.490/2006. The appeal should have been filed in the District Court, instead it was filed in the High Court. This Court entertained and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. He further submits that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and this was brought to the notice of the Court in which final decree proceedings had been initiated. Ignoring the same, final decree has been passed and therefore, the same is challenged here.
3. In view of the above submissions, it is to be made clear that, according to the Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, no doubt the appeal should have been filed in the District Court. However, mistakenly it was filed in the High Court. This Court did not lack jurisdiction to decide former appeal as High Court can always entertain and decide an appeal that actually lies to an appellate Court, like District Court or Senior Civil Judge’s Court. Therefore, there was no legal infirmity in RFA No.490/2006 being decided by this Court. However, the appeal that has been filed now challenging the final decree cannot be permitted to continue here because the appellant knows that appeal actually lies to District Court.
4. With the above observations, the appellant is given liberty to approach District Court. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned judgment/order and other original documents produced by him to enable him to re-present the same before the District Court. The appeal should be re-presented within 30 days from today.
5. The application for bringing legal representatives shall also be transmitted to District Court for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE NS