Even though the matter is posted for admission, with

the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is taken up for hearing.

This petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant

under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act

challenging the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2023

passed by the Court of the Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru

in S.C.No.697/2021.

3.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred

to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4.

Brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs is that they are

the owners of property bearing No.5/1, 2^nd Main Road,

- 3 -

Dattatreya Extension, Kempegowda Nagara, Bangalore,

more fully described in the suit schedule property. Since

the defendant is in illegal possession of the said property,

the plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment against the

defendant to quit, vacate and handover the vacant

possession of the suit schedule property.

5.

After service of summons, the defendant appeared

and filed written statement and denied the plaint

averments. She also filed a counter claim contending that

she had paid a sum of Rs.540,000/- as advance amount to

the plaintiff’s mother. Hence, she sought for return of the

said amount.

6.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial

Court has framed the following issues:

a) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is

the unauthorized occupant in the suit schedule

property?

b) Whether the defendant is entitled for counter

claim of Rs.540,000/- from the plaintiffs?

- 4 -

c) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as

sought in the plaint?

d) What order or decree?

7.

To prove the case, the plaintiffs have examined

plaintiff No.1 as PW-1 and produced and marked 8

documents. The defendant has examined herself as DW-1

and produced 7 documents. On appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has answered

issue Nos.1 and 3 in the affirmative and issue No.2

answered accordingly and consequently, allowed the suit

filed by the plaintiffs and rejected the counter claim of the

defendant. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is

before this Court.

8.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has

contended that the grievance of the petitioner is only in

respect of rejection of the counter claim. He contended

that even though the Trial Court has answered issue No.2

and has given a finding that ‘this court has no pecuniary

jurisdiction

to

entertain

the

counter

claim

of

the

- 5 -

defendant. The defendant has right to adjudicate her

counter claim in accordance with in law in the proper court

of law.’, but in the operative portion, it has rejected the

counter claim filed by the defendant. Hence, he sought for

allowing the petition.

9.

The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs

has contended that the Trial Court after considering the

evidence of the parties and documents produced has

rightly answered issue No.1 in the affirmative. In respect

of issue No.2 is concerned, the Trial Court has held that

the Small Causes Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to

entertain the counter claim and hence reserved liberty to

the defendant to approach the proper court. Hence, he has

no objection for modification of the impugned judgment in

respect of rejection of counter claim.

10.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

- 6 -

11.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

point that arises for consideration in this petition is only

with regard to rejection of the counter claim filed by the

defendant.

12.

The Trial Court has framed issue No.2 as ‘Whether

the defendant is entitled for counter claim of Rs.540,000/-

from the plaintiffs?’. While answering the said issue, the

Trial Court has given a finding that ‘this court has no

pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim of the

defendant. The defendant has right to adjudicate her

counter claim in accordance with in law in the proper court

of law.’ B