The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order passed on IA No.III by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara in R.A.No.60/2016 dated 18.7.2017 in holding that, the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the appeal and consequently returned the appeal to the appellant (plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.80/2012) to present the same before the High Court of Karnataka, as the valuation of the subject matter of the suit and appeal exceeds Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only.

2. The Registry, after filing of the appeal has raised objections with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court as the subject matter is less than Rs.10,00,000/- and the appeal is also not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of CPC.

3. Keeping open the said office objection, the matter was posted for hearing the counsel’s submission regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

4. No notices have been issued to the respondents as the maintainability of the appeal itself has been questioned in this appeal.

5. The first objection raised by the office is that the appeal is not maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of CPC because of the simple reason that the Appellate Court i.e. the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, has returned the appeal for proper presentation before the appropriate court. Therefore, the said order virtually falls under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, though specifically the provision has not been mentioned by the III Additional District Judge while returning the memorandum of appeal.

6. Order XLIII Rule 1(a) of CPC refers to the appeals to the Appellate Courts and as it is, the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Ramanagara, the next appellate court would be the High Court. However, Order VII Rule 10 of CPC refers to return of plaint which is mutatis mutandis applicable to appeals also. Therefore, the said objection of the office deserves to be overruled.

7. The next question which arose for consideration after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant is that –

‘Whether the Trial Court order is proper and correct in returning the appeal for proper presentation before the High Court?’.

8. In order to consider this particular aspect, it is just and necessary to have the brief factual matrix of this case:

The appellant before the District Court- Smt. M. Veena and another by name Smt.Suma have jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.80/2012 for partition and separate possession of their joint legitimate share in the suit schedule property and sought for partition of their 2/8th joint share, valuing the joint share at Rs.14,30,500/- for the purpose of jurisdiction. The said suit is partly dismissed to the effect that, the plaintiffs claim over the suit item Nos.3, 13, 19, 25, 26, 29, 36, 42 in ‘A’ schedule properties and ‘B’ suit schedule properties were dismissed. However, the suit of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 is decreed to the extent of 9/64th share in item Nos.1, 2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 to 24, 27, 28, 30 to 35, 37 to 41, 43, 44 and 45 in ‘A’ schedule properties, against which judgment and decree, the first plaintiff- Smt.Veena has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.60/2016 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, bifurcating her share and valuing the appeal for a sum of Rs.7,15,250/- being the first plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule property. The first plaintiff felt that, the value is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal was preferred before the District Judge, Ramanagara.

9. It is also pertinent to note here that aggrieved by the same judgment and decree, defendants 1 and 2 Smt. S. Vijayamma and M.Santhosh have preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA No.1815/2016 valuing the subject matter of the suit as valued by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court for the purpose of jurisdiction for a sum of Rs.14,30,000/-.

10. In this background, court has to examine whether the order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge in R.A.No.60