- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 100597 OF 2025 (DEC/INJ-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. TUKARAM S/O. VITTAL PHALAKE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 2. SMT. ANASUYA W/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 3. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE, R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 4. SMT. TEJA D/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 5. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. TUKARAM PHALAKE, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O.ALAGUR-587301, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H. R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.10.15 11:28:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE-587103, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 2. THE TAHASILDAR MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, JAMKHANDI-587301, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 3. SHRI SUBASHCHANDRA S/O. BALAPPA BHOSALE, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC. FOREST GUARD, R/O.HONAWAD-586130, TQ. TIKOTA, DIST. VIJAYAPUR, WILD LIFE DIVISION, KAVERI WILD LIFE DIVISION, R/O.HANUR-571439, TQ. HANUR, DIST. CHAMARAJNAGAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND SUNGRESHI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; R3-NOTICE SERVED) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W. ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED IN R.A.NO.23/2024 BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, FURTHER IT IS PRAYED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO.89/2024 DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, C/C PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI WITH A PRAYER TO DECREE THE SAID SUIT O.S.NO.89/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT AS PRAYED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned HCGP. 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit when it did not overturn the finding of the Trial Court that it had no jurisdiction?” 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs are the father, mother and siblings of Krishnabai, who was given in marriage to defendant No.3. The deceased-Krishnabai and defendant No.3 were residing at Hunsur of Chamarajnagar District after their marriage and the matrimonial life was not cordial. The deceased-Krishnabai committed suicide and therefore, a criminal case was registered in Bilekere Police Station in Crime No.54/2023 on 13.03.2023 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304(B) read with section 34 of Cr.P.C., and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application for survival certificate (Legal Heirs Certificate) to the concerned authorities at Jamakhandi and the Tahsildar, Jamakhandi had granted the same. However, the death benefits of deceased-Krishnabai were not released to the plaintiffs. Therefore, they instituted a suit in O.S.No.89/2024 before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamakhandi. The respondent-State appeared before the Trial Court and filed written statement contending that the Court had no jurisdiction since the deceased-Krishnabai was residing at Hunsur with her husband and therefore, it is only the Court at Hunasur, which has the jurisdiction. Accordingly, additional issue was framed by the Trial Court and it gave a finding on the said additional issue stating that the Courts at Hunsur alone has jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the question of jurisdiction was addressed by the Trial Court, it did not determine the issue Nos.1 and 2. After recording a finding that it had no jurisdiction, the Trial Court went on to dismiss the suit. 4. The same was challenged by the appellants before the First Appellate Court stating that the judgment of the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is not justifiable since the plaint - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 should have been returned for presentation before the appropriate Court as it came to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction. However, the First Appellate Court went to consider the said aspect along with other issues also. In doing so, it did not specifically address the issues regarding the jurisdiction. In a single line, in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, it holds that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit but no reasons are assigned. After saying so, it goes on to determine the issue No.2 also and then the appeal was dismissed. The paragraph 21 of the judgment of the First Appellate Court reads as below: “21. The trial court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial court has not given findings on the issue No.1 and 2. Furthermore the trial court has not treated additional issue as preliminary issue but answered issue No.1 and 2 as does not arise. The trial court ought to have given findings on issue No.1 and 2. The main object of settlement of issue is to ascertain the real dispute between the parties by narrowing down the area of conflict and determine where the parties differ. Issues are the lifeline and guide for any suit and therefore the framing of issues has very important duty on the trial court and decision of a case. By combined - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 reading of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 what therefore emerges is that, except in situations covered by sub-rule (2) a court must dispose of a suit as a whole, try all issues of law and fact together and accordingly pronounce judgment on all such issues even though the case may be disposed of on a preliminary issues". Order 14 Rule 2 court to pronounce the judgment on all the issues 1) not withstanding of that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) pronounce judgment on all issues. But trial court has not given findings on issue No.1 and 2. Hence, trial court has not complied the provisions of the Order 14 Rule 2 of CPC and committed an error.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that once the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction, the plaint should have been returned for presentation before the appropriate Court. On the other hand, the Trial Court had dismissed the suit itself. Though evidence was recorded, since the question of jurisdiction was a mixed question of fact and law, the recording of the evidence would not have weighed much before the Trial Court. So far as the judgment of the First Appellate Court is concerned, in paragraph 21, the Court holds that the Trial Court has jurisdiction but it does not remand the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 matter to the Trial Court to give finding on the remaining issue No.1 and 2 framed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has also erred in dismissing the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the impugned judgments are proper and correct and no interference is required, however no substantial contentions are taken by him. 7. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court has not given any finding on issue No.1 and 2 on the ground that it had no jurisdiction. When the Court came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction, the course open to the Trial Court was to return the plaint. Therefore, the Trial Court could not have dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court though holds in paragraph 21 of its judgment that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it dismissed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is not sustainable in law. Hence the following: ORDER i) The appeal is disposed of. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13705 RSA No. 100597 of 2025 ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 28.02.2025 in R.A.No.23/2024 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi is hereby set aside. iii) The matter is remanded back to the First Appellate Court to give a clear finding as to whether the Trial Court has jurisdiction or not and then if there was no such jurisdiction, it shall direct the Trial Court to return the plaint for presentation of the same before the appropriate Court. iv) The appeal is disposed of accordingly. v) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. SD/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE YAN CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22