- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.201478 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: VENKAT REDDY S/O LAXMAREDDY, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KANDKUR VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST:YADGIRI-585201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALIK PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANASHANKAR S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, COOLI, R/O YALASATTI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST:YADGIRI-585201. 2. DEVAPPA @ DEVINDRAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O YALASATTI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST: YADGIRI-585201. 3. BHADRAPPA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, COOLI, R/O YALASATTI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST:YADGIRI-585201. Digitally signed by SACHIN Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 4. SMT. GOVINDAMMA W/O LATE BALAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, COOLI, R/O YALASATTI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST:YADGIRI-585201. 5. KUMARI TARA D/O LATE BALAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 15 YEARS, 6. KUMARI TANUSHA D/O LATE BALAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 13 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE MINORS U/G OF RESPONDENT NO.4, 7. SMT.MALLAMMA W/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA MADIVAL, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O YALASATTI VILLAGE, TQ: AND DIST:YADGIRI-585201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VARUN PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2, R3 & R7 ARE SERVED; R5 & R6 ARE MINORS U/G OF R4; R4 DEAD, R5 AND R6 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE THE WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 PASSED ON I.A.NO.9 APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.7/PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 14 RULE 5 CPC IN O.S.NO.30/2016 PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, YADGIRI AND ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER Defendant No.7 in O.S.No.30/2016, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Yadgiri, has challenged an order dated 16.07.2021 passed therein, by which, an application filed by him under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. 2. The suit in O.S.No.30/2016 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.7 was a purchaser of one of the items of the suit schedule properties. 3. The defendant No.7 contested the suit and inter alia claimed that the plaintiff had not included all the properties of the family and claimed that Sy.Nos.174/A and 174/E totally measuring 6 acres was not included in the suit for partition. He also claimed that the value of the suit properties was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court. Based on these contentions, the Trial - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 Court framed issues and set down the case for evidence. At that stage, defendant No.7 filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC suggesting the following issues: (i) Whether the suit is barred by pecuniary Jurisdiction? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable? (iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that, all the family properties are included in the suit schedule properties? 4. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the application was filed at the stage when the suit was set down for evidence of defendant No.7. It held that the plaintiff had valued the suit at a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and had paid maximum Court fee of Rs.200/-. Therefore, it held that defendant No.7 cannot claim that the Trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the suit. Consequently, it rejected the application in terms of the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said order, defendant No.7 has filed this petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 5. Learned counsel for defendant No.7 contended that a specific issue was raised by defendant No.7 in the written statement that certain properties that belonged to the family and which stood in the name of defendant No.6 were not included in the suit for partition and therefore a suit for partial partition was not maintainable. He thus contends that the Trial Court must have framed an additional issue as to whether the suit for partial partition was maintainable? 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff did not dispute that defendant No.7 had raised a contention that certain properties that stood in the name of defendant No.6 were not included in the suit for partition. He however contends that the properties that stood in the name of defendant No.6 were not the properties of the joint family and therefore were not available for partition. 7. If defendant No.7 has raised a contentious issue in the written statement, then certainly an issue as to whether a suit for partial partition was maintainable or - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 not did arise for consideration. Since defendant No.7 has raised a contention that certain properties that stood in the name of defendant No.6 which belonged to the family were not included in the suit for partition, the Trial Court must have framed an issue and must have imposed the burden of proving the said issue on defendant No.7. To that extent, the application filed by defendant No.7 merits consideration. In so far as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is concerned, the Trial Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit when it was first presented. Now the defendant No.7 contends that if the two properties standing in the name of defendant No.6 are included, then the Trial Court would lose jurisdiction. The said issue would arise only when the two properties standing in the name of defendant No.6 are held to be the properties of the joint family. Therefore, the issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction would not arise for consideration. 8. Consequently, the following order is passed: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:273 WP No. 201478 of 2021 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order passed by the Trial Court rejecting I.A.No.IX filed by defendant No.7 under Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed in part. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to frame the following issue: “Whether defendant No.7 proves that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for partial partition and therefore not maintainable?” (iv) Since the suit is filed in the year 2016, the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the suit as early as possible and in accordance with the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Sub- Ordinate Courts) Rules, 2005. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RSP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 61 CT:SI