MUNIYAMMA Vs. CHINNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's revision questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dated 3/2/2010 in O.S.No.659/2001, whereunder while answering Additional Issue No.1, the Court below has held that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently ordered the plaintiff to take back the plaint and present it before jurisdictional Court.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The parties are referred to as per the ranks before the Court below. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief and also for delivery of possession of suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant, his agents, men, supporters, assigns, executors and workers from not changing the nature of the suit schedule property amongst other reliefs.

(3.) It was contended by the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 2/7/1947 and it is her self-acquired property. It was also contended that the first defendant had executed a registered deed of settlement in respect of suit property as per settlement deed dated 2/1/1970 and as per the said settlement, the plaintiff was allotted 5 guntas of land, which according to the plaintiff is the subject-matter of the suit and described in the plaint as suit schedule property. She also claimed to be in possession of suit schedule property and on account of certain persons including the 4th defendant having attempted to interfere with her possession, she filed the present suit.