The present civil revision petition by the defendants

assailing the order dated 06.08.2021 in O.S. No.14/2009

on preliminary additional issue Nos.1 and 4 on the file of

the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, Bagalkot.

The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.

No.14/2009. The respondent No.1 filed a suit for

declaration that she is the absolute and exclusive owner of

the land R.S. No.3 measuring 03 acres 05 guntas of

Bilkerur Village in Bagalkot Taluk and that the resolution

passed

by

defendant

No.3

is

null

and

void

and

consequently, direct defendant Nos.1 and 2 to hand over

the possession of the portion of the land in which the

- 3 -

school building is situated by demolishing the said

building.

The Trial Court by its order dated 19.01.2016,

while deciding additional issue Nos.1 and 4, which read as

under:

“Additional issue No.1:Whether the defendant

proves that suit is not property valued and court

fee paid is insufficient

Additional issue No.4:Whether the defendant

proves that suit of the plaintiff is exceeds pecuniary

jurisdiction of this Court?”

And has concluded that the Trial Court has pecuniary

jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court fee paid is proper.

The petitioner filed C.R.P. No.100034/2016

assailing the order dated 19.01.2016. This Court by its

order dated 13.08.2020, in light of the Full Bench of this

Court in Venkatesh R. Desai Vs. Smt. Pushpa

Hosmani and Others reported in ILR 2018 KAR 5095

and considering that the petitioners were not afforded an

- 4 -

opportunity to put up their stand, remitted the matter to

the Civil Court to re-decide the additional preliminary issue

regarding pecuniary jurisdiction after affording another

opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence in support

thereon and directed the Civil Court to re-decide the

additional preliminary issue as regards its pecuniary

jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible.

5.

Pursuant to which, the D.W.3 has led his

evidence and marked document at Ex.D.16-suit property

valuation issued by the Engineer.

6.

The Trial Court on considering the material on

record and the evidence of the parties by its order dated

06.08.2021 has held that the Court has pecuniary

jurisdiction to try the suit and the Court fee paid by the

plaintiff is proper and the suit of the plaintiff is

maintainable. Aggrieved by which, the present petition is

by the defendants.

- 5 -

7.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S.No.14/2009 for

declaration

and

consequential

reliefs

in

respect

of

agricultural property measuring 03 acres 05 guntas and

that the petitioners specific case in their written statement

is that the suit subject matter comprises construction for a

high school building and the first prayer of the plaintiff for

declaration of the title would include the title of the

aforesaid construction and the plaintiff has initially valued

the subject matter at Rs.2,00,000/-, which is not

sustainable. According to the petitioners, Ex.D.16 is a suit

property valuation of Rs.15,00,000/-, which has been

valuated by the valuator and the same has not been

considered by the Trial Court while holding that the

plaintiff’s suit is within the pecuniary jurisdiction. Learned

counsel for the petitioners would contend that the valuator

submitted the valuation for the year 2015. If considered

when the building had been constructed in the year 2001,

the valuation would have been higher and the Trial Court

- 6 -

was not justified in holding that the suit of the plaintiff is

within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

8.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would justify the order passed by the Trial

Court and would contend that the suit property valuation

submitted by the petitioners/defendants to contend that

the suit is valued more than Rs.15,00,000/- for the year

2015. Whereas, the suit was filed in the year 2009 and if

considered the same, the valuation as on the date of filin