NITYANANDA HEGDE Vs. SUMATHI SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant filed the present writ petition against the order passed on Preliminary Issue No.4 dated 29.01.2019 in O.S. No.239/013 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC., Udupi answering the Preliminary issue in negative holding that the there is nothing as record to hold that the subject matter of the present suit is more valuable beyond the jurisdiction of the suit and the valuation so made by the plaintiff under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') with regard to Court Fee is proper.

(2.) The respondents who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed the suit for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant or anybody else on his behalf from alienating or creating any encumbrance with respect to plaint "A" schedule property till the Shirva Nadibettu Aliyasanthana properties mentioned in the order dated 30.03.1944 are divided by metes and bounds and the plaintiffs legitimate share is given to them etc., and also contended that Nadibettu family of Shirva village, Udupi Taluk is a very leading Bunts family which originally belongs to 4 ladies namely Nagamma Heggadthi, Venkamma Heggadthi, Achu Heggadthi and Daramma Heggadthi. Said family had consisted of vast properties. The elders of the family have referred their family dispute to the Panchayathadars. After enquiry, a panchayath award has been passed on 30.03.1944 and the same has been made into a Court decree in O.P. No.37/1944 dated 8.1.1945 on the file of sub-ordinate Judge, South Canara, Mangaluru as per Section 14 of Arbitration Award. The said Arbitration Award came to be registered as document No.515/44 at Sub-Registrar Office, Udupi.

(3.) Defendants filed written statement denied the plaint averments and specifically contended that framing of the suit is not proper. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs ought to have sought for declaration of their alleged rights and the disputes raised by them in the suit cannot be decided in a suit for injunction simpliciter. Also denied the share of the plaintiffs' property in question and sought for dismissal of the suit. Based on the pleadings, the trial by an order dated 08.11.2016, has framed six issues.