- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 38207 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NANJUNDAREDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1(A). SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 1(B). SRI. SRINIVASA M.S S/O LATE NANJUNDAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 1(C). SRI. SHIVAHANKAR REDDY M.N, S/O LATE NANJUNDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(D). SRI. MANJUNATHA M.N S/O LATE NANJUNDAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MOTAKAPALLI VILLAGE, GULURU HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V., ADV. FOR PROPOSED LR'S) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 AND: 1. SMT. CHANNAMMA D/O LATE RAMAPPA @ RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. SMT. SUVARNAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAPPA @ RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 3. SMT. SHIVALAKSHMI, D/O LATE RAMAPPA @ RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 4. SMT. UMADEVI, D/O LATE RAMAPPA @ RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 5. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, S/O LATE RAMAPPA @ RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MOTAKAPALLI VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK - 561 207, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2, R4 AND R5; R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 266 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 24.6.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAGEPALLI, IN O.S.19/2016 ON THE ADDL. ISSUE RELATING TO PECUNIARY JURISDICTION ANSWERING IN NEGATIVE AT ANNEX-H & CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS / RESPONDENTS FOR WANT OF PECUNIARY JURISDICTION & ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2017 passed in O.S.No.19/2016 by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Bagepalli on the additional issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, the defendant is before this Court. 2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit schedule properties are 12 in number. There are 2 house properties and 10 agricultural landed properties. The plaintiffs are claiming the half share in the property i.e., Rs.4,00,000/- and they have paid the Court fees. It is the case of the defendant that the Court of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagepalli, does not have jurisdiction, as the property is worth more than Rs.20,00,000/-. The Court has observed that looking at the market value fixed by the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 sub- Registrar, one acre is estimated at ₹70,000/- and the house property is fixed at ₹500/- per Sq.Ft. The calculation in respect of 6.52 acres of land in respect of which the plaintiff has filed the present suit comes to ₹4,56,750/- at the rate of ₹70,000/- per acre, as per the rate fixed by the Government and two house properties at the rate of ₹500/- per Sq.Ft. i.e., ₹1,21,000/- + ₹3,63,000/- comes to ₹4,84,000/- and the total value of lands and houses comes to ₹9,40,000/- and as the plaintiff is claiming half of the property then it comes to ₹4,70,375/- which is well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the Court held that the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court has also observed that the Court cannot decide the question of pecuniary jurisdiction based on the sale consideration of adjoining land owners and would have to go by the Government rates fixed and accordingly, held that the Court has jurisdiction. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that when he has placed before the Court the documents to show that the property is worth Rs.20,00,000/- and the Court has no jurisdiction. The Court instead of looking at the said documents for considering the market value, had considered the rate fixed by the Registrar. The petitioner drawing the attention of the Court to Section 1(mm) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which defines what is the market value. He submits that as per the same market value in relation to any property means – “the price which such property would have fetched, in the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner or the Appellate Authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration stated in the instrument whichever is higher”. Relying on this, he submits that the Court ought to have looked at the market value basing on the instrument that is relied on by the defendant but not on the market value. The Court without considering all these - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 aspects, has held that the Court has got pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the Court has rightly considered all the aspects and held that while considering the market value, the Court can only look at the market value fixed as per the book value that has to be taken into consideration and looking at the documents that are placed and considering the market value, then the Court would be indulging itself in this exercise than considering the disputes that are between the parties. He submits that the Court has passed a reasoned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 6. According to the defendants, the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. For this, he has relied on the sale deed in respect of the land, which is about an acre. According to the plaintiffs, they have assessed the jurisdiction basing on the market value of the properties as per the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar and the Court has also considered the same and has rightly come to the conclusion that the value fixed by the Government i.e., the book value maintained by the Registrar would be the relevant consideration while determining the valuation of a suit. 7. This Court do not find any merit in the argument of the learned counsel that the Court has to look at the definition of the 'market value' as per the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. It has to be looked at by considering the provisions of the Karnataka suit valuation Act and not the Karnataka Stamp Act. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2047 WP No. 38207 of 2017 order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: BHK