- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51090 CRP No. 403 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.403 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRANNA S/O LATE DODDABAYYANNA AGED 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O B G KERE VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK-577 535 2. KAREOBAMMA W/O CHANDRANNA AND D/O LATE DODDABAYYANNA AGED 57 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O SANNAPAPAIAHNAHATTI VILLAGE KONASAGARAMAJURE MOLAKALMURU TALUK-577535 3. SURAIAH S/O LATE BADEDADDAIAH AGE 69 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 4. THIPPAIAH S/O LATE BADEDADDAIAH AGE 66 YEARS AGRICULTURIST PETITIONERS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/O B G KERE VILLAGE MOLAKALMURU TALUK-577535 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51090 CRP No. 403 of 2024 AND: 1. SURAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA D/O LATE SHANNABAYYANNA AGE 56 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O BUKNARAHALLI VILLAGE HIREHALLI POST CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 2. KARIBASAMMA W/O OBAIAH D/O LATE SANNABAYYANNA AGE 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577522 3. RAYAMMA W/O KATAIAH D/O LATE SANNABAYYANNA AGED 52 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O UDEGOLA VILLAGE, RAYADURGA TALUK ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH STATE-515 865 4. NAGAMMA W/O NINGAPPA D/O LATE SANNABAYYANNA AGE 43 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O NADULA KARINARAHATTI VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583135 5. THIPPAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA D/O LATE SANNABAYYANNA AGE 41 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O ABBENAHALLI VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK-577 522 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51090 CRP No. 403 of 2024 6. OBAMMA D/O MUTTHAIAH AND MAYAMMA AGE 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O KARENARAHATTI VILLAGE TAYAKANAHALLI POST, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 135 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KARTHIK D. NAYAK FOR SRI NATARAJA BALLAL A, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R5; R1 -SERVED) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 PASSED IN FDP No.12/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri R. Shashidhara, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Karthik D Nayak, learned counsel representing Sri Nataraja Ballal A., learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 5. 2. Respondent Nos.1 (a), 1 (b), 2 and 3 are the revision petitioners challenging the proceedings before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51090 CRP No. 403 of 2024 Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Challakere in final decree proceedings in F.D.P.No.12/2012. 3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction in view of the subsequent alteration of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Civil Judge (Jr.Dn). Therefore, the proceedings before the Senior Division Court is not maintainable having regard to the value of the suit properties. 4. The trial Judge dismissed the contention of the revision petitioner by impugned order. 5. Being aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners are before this court. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners Sri R.Shashidara, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition contented that the final decree proceedings ought to have been transferred to the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) for passing the final decree and should have been tried by the Junior Division as it had no pecuniary jurisdiction. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51090 CRP No. 403 of 2024 8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 9. On such perusal of the material on record discloses that the preliminary decree came to be passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) in O.S.No.31/2002. At that juncture, the Court having the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 10. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that after passing the preliminary decree there is no need that to file a fresh petition for passing the final decree and the trial Court after declaring the shares of the parties must continue with the same suit by re-nominating it as final decree proceedings after the appeal period is completed. 11. Therefore, Court which passed the preliminary decree will have the jurisdiction to pass the final decree as well irrespective of the change of pecuniary jurisdiction in the interregnum. 12. Therefore, the objection raised by the revision petitioners was rightly rejected by the trial Court in the final decree proceedings in the impugned order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51090 CRP No. 403 of 2024 13. Therefore, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration. 14. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR