IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.629 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Jagadeesh Kumar S., S/o. Late S.Shivamallegowda, Aged about 36 years, R/at. Sathegala Village, Palya Hobli, Kollegal Taluk-571440, Chamarajanagar District.
2. Smt. Deepa Rani S., D/o. Late S.Shivamallegowda, W/o. K.C.Mahesh, Aged about 33 years, R/at Kagepura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk-571430 Mandya District-571401 (By Sri. M.B.Rajashekar, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Mamatha, D/o. Late S.Shivamallegowda, Aged about 43 years, …Appellants 2. Sri. Naveen, S/o. Late S.Shivamallegowda, Aged about 41 years, 3. Sri. Santhosha, S/o. Late S.Shivamallegowda, Aged about 40 years.
4. Smt. K.Premaleela, W/o. Late S.Shivamallegowda, Aged about 70 years, All are residing at No.61, Dr. Rajkumar Layout, 1st Cross, Opp: Bus Depot Mandya-571402.
... Respondents This RFA is filed under Section 96 of read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2018 passed in FDP No.2/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Kollegala entitling the appellants herein 1/24th share each and appellants herein prays to effectuate partition and separate possession of appellants 1/6th share each in the suit schedule property along with other co-parceners.
This RFA coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The office has raised objection with regard to maintainability of this appeal in this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants preferred an appeal, FR No./RA/5081/2018 in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kollegala, Chamarajanagara District. Certified copy of the order dated 06.12.2018 in the said appeal is produced. Said order reads like this: “Return documents to the appellant”. From this order it does not become clear whether the said appeal is still pending or not. But the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal has been closed by the District Court. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 1995 and because of increase in the market value of the property, the value of the subject matter of the appeal exceeds Rs.50 lakhs and therefore the High Court alone has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. There may be increase in the property value. It is altogether a different aspect which cannot be considered. The initial valuation made by the plaintiff decides the forum of jurisdiction. The appellants have also produced valuation slip filed by the plaintiff in the suit. According to this valuation slip, total valuation of the properties comes to Rs.9,05,000/- and that the plaintiffs claim 1/4th share each. Therefore the appeal comes within the jurisdiction of District Court. Making this point clear, the District Court is hereby directed to entertain the appeal and dispose of it on merits.
Registry is directed to return the appeal memo and such other papers to the appellants to enable them to re- present the appeal before the District Court. If any deficit court fee is payable, the same may be paid in the District Court.
KMV/-
sd/- JUDGE