LAWS(KAR)-1992-8-45

THIBBAIAH Vs. DESIGOWDA

Decided On August 26, 1992
THIBBAIAH Appellant
V/S
DESIGOWDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) when the appeal was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the appeal will have to be transferred to the court of the district judge, mandya, having regard to the value of the subject-matter, which according to him, is below Rs. One lakh. Mr.chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel for the appellant contended that this was a partition suit and the subject-matter of the suit will be the entire joint family property from which the plaintiff-appellant seeks partition.

(2.) there can be no doubt that the value of the subject-matter for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction may be different from the value of the subject-matter for the purpose of court-fee, having regard to the Provisions of Section 50 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. In the case of a partition suit, the court-fee payable is fixed under Section 35(2), when the plaintiff asserts that he is in joint possession of the property. But this fixed court-fee also in turn depends upon the value of the plaintiffs share. Necessarily the value of the share of the plaintiff will be the market value.

(3.) under Section 50, normally the value of the subject-matter is determined for the purpose of jurisdiction with reference to the valuation shown for the purpose of court-fee, unless there is some specific provision governing the valuation for determining the court's jurisdiction. Mr. Chandrashekaraiah contends that when the plaintiff seeks partition, he seeks a right in every piece and parcel of the joint family property and therefore, the entire joint family property is the subject-matter of the litigation and consequently for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the value of the entire joint family property will have to be considered and not the value of the plaintiff's share. For this proposition learned counsel cited a decision of the Orissa High Court reported in Babaji Charan Sahu v Netrananda Saint and others, AIR 1979 Orissa 71. It was held therein that