IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.465 OF 2018 BETWEEN M.RAJASHEKARA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O K.T.MAHALINGAPPA, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MALLEHARAVU, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI PATEL.D.KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SANNA PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. HONNURAMMA, W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, DEAD BY LRS.
PALAMMA D/O HONNURAMMA W/O DODDA MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O MALLEHARAVU, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
3. HANUMAKKA, D/O HANNURAMMA, W/O PALAIAH, DEAD BY LRS PATHALINGAPPA, S/O PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, DEAD BY NO.1 LEGAL HEIRS, R/O KEREKONDAPURA, R/O MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
4. LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O PALAIAH, W/O UMESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O KEREKONDAPURA, R/O MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
5. OBAMMA, D/O HONNURAMMA, W/O VENDARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA, GRAMDOTLU, RAYADURGA TALUK.
6. THIMMAKKA, D/O HONNURAMMA, W/O NINGAMMA, DEAD BY LRS RADHIKA, W/O SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA, GRAMDOTLU, RAYADURGA TALUK.
7. NARASIMHA, S/O NINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA, GRAMADOTLU, RAYADURGA TALUK.
8. JAYARAM, S/O NINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA, GRAMDOTLU, RAYADURGA TALUK.
9. AKKAMMA, D/O THIMMAKKA, W/O NINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O VEERAPURA, GRAMADOTLU, RAYADURGA TALUK.
10. PALAIAH, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
11. BASAVARAJU @ BASANNA, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
12. HANUMANTHAREDDY, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
13. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE GADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
14. MUTHAIAH, S/O LATE GADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
15. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE GADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
16. PALAIAH, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
17. SANNAPALAIAH, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
18. SAJJALU OBAIAH, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
19. BASANNA, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
20. HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
21. VASANTHAREDDY, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
22. ERAIAH, S/O LATE PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
23. NAGARAJU, S/O GOWDRA PALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, R/O MALLEHARAVU VILLAGE, DEVASAMUDRA HOBLI, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDDAPPA B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2018 PASSED ON IA NO.VI IN OS NO.39/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MOLAKALMURU DISMISSING THE IA NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court under Section 115 of CPC, assailing the order dated 05-2-2018 on I.A.No.VI in O.S.No.39/2015 on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Molakalmuru.
2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff in O.S.No.39/2015. Plaintiff’s suit is for partition and separate possession and to declare that certain sale deeds are not binding on him.
3. Defendant No.1 on his appearance filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC praying to reject the plaint on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and also the plaintiff has not valued the suit schedule property correctly. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing the objection. The trial Court, under impugned order rejected the application-I.A.No.VI filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, the petitioner is in revision.
4. The petitioner’s contention is that the court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and also has not valued the suit property correctly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has placed on record the materials to indicate that the land is converted, hence valuation is more than what is valued by the plaintiff. Thus, prays for allowing the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the petition papers.
6. It is settled position of law that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is to be considered only on averments made in the plaint. The defence or written statement averments are of no relevance at the time of consideration of the application. As such, the trial Court looking to the averments of the plaint has rightly rejected the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
It is open for defendant No.1 to seek before the trial Court to frame the issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction as well as with regard to the valuation of the suit.
With these observations, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ