Full Judgment
1. Heard Mr. G.B.. Manjunath, learned Counsel for petitioner, The learned Counsel for respondent 1 was not present and therefore the Court could not have the advantage of his reply. The other respondents though served have remained absent.
2. The petitioner is defendant 1 in O.S, No. 542 of 1997 on the file of the Court below, who has questioned the correctness and validity of the Trial Court's order dated 24-1-1998 passed on the objection raised by the defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court to entertain the said suit and proceed with its trial.
3. The said O.S. No. 542 of 1997 is filed in the Court below by the respondent 1-plaintiff against petitioner and respondents 2 to 8 arraying them as defendants 1 to 8, respectively, for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property which is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 78/1 measuring 2 acres 24 guntas shown as situate in Horamavu Agara Village of K.R. Puram Hobli in Bangalore South Taluk. The suit is filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. On appearance in the suit, an objection through memo was raised by the petitioner-defendant that the suit property being situate outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below, it has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The Trial Court, relying on the State Government's Notification No. RD 35 LRD 86, dated 21-7-1986, has overruled the petitioner's objection and has held that the suit property is situated within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction and, therefore, it is competent to proceed with the trial of the suit.
4. Section 16 of the CPC deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Suffice it to consider sub-clause (b) under Section 16 of the CPC which determines the territorial limits of the Court in which the suit for partition of immovable property has to be instituted. According to Section 16(b), the suit for partition of immovable property has to be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate. Keeping in view the limitation imposed by this general provision of the CPC, now it has to be determined with reference to the relevant provisions of the Act of 1979 and the Act of 1964, if the Court below does have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant suit.
5. Mr. Manjunath, learned Counsel for petitioner inviting the Court's attention to the said Government notification dated 21-7-1986, which is produced along with the petition, as also to the map of the territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore City Civil and Sessions Court published by the Government for the purpose of fixing the territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore City Civil Court as defined by sub-section (aa) under Section 2 of the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act, 1979, contended that the finding of the Court below in its impugned order relating to its territorial jurisdiction is patently erroneous.
6. In compliance with the directions given on the previous date of hearing to the office to put up the notification of this Court, if any, made in regard to fixation of territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, the office has placed on record the photocopy of the proforma showing the Statement Regarding the Territorial Jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal Courts as on 30-6-1995 of Bangalore Rural District. This proforma indicates that it has been issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. It does not disclose as to under the authority of which provision, either under the CPC or under the Cr. P.C., the same was issued by the learned District Judge. Since the said proforma is not traceable to any provision of the law investing the power with the District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore empowering him to issue such a statement, reliance cannot be placed on that proforma to base a finding concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below. On the other hand, the said Government's notification dated 21-7-1986 and the said map showing the limit of territorial jurisdiction of the Bangalore City Civil and Sessions Court published by the Government under G.O. No. LAW 247 LCI 8037, dated 10-11-1980 to give effect to sub-section (aa) of Section 2 of the Act of 1979 are the dependable and reliable documents on the basis of which a correct decision on the point in dispute could be arrived at.
7. By the said Government's Notification No. RD 35 LRD 86, dated 21-7-1986 published under Section 4 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the erstwhile Bangalore District has been bifurcated into two districts namely, Bangalore Urban District and Bangalore Rural District. The territorial limits of these two districts-are also specified by this notification. At page 7 of the notification at the villages which are situate within the limits of K.R. Puram Hobli of Bangalore South Taluk are indicated. The village i.e., Horamavu Agara is shown at S1. No. 24 as of this K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which Taluk, in turn is shown in this notification as included in Bangalore Urban District. Section 2 of the Act of 1979 defines 'The City of Bangalore' as follows:
'Definitions.--In this Act unless the context otherwise requires...
(ii) 'City of Bangalore' means the area for the time being included for the Metropolitan area comprising the Bangalore City declared in the Section 8 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974)'.
City of Bangalore is also defined by sub-section (aa) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 (Act of 1964). City of Bangalore shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Bangalore City Civil Courts Act,1979.
8. The said map published by the Government of Karnataka under its Notification No. LAW 247, LCI 8037, dated 10-11-1980 indicates that the suit village 'Horamavu Agara' is located within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the Bangalore City Civil Court. Therefore, this indisputable and dependable material satisfactorily establishes that the suit property situate within the said village is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below viz., II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. In that view of the matter its impugned order is not a valid order and the same cannot be sustained. As such the petitioner-defendant 1's objection raised in regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court below is entitled to be upheld.
9. Hence for the reasons aforesaid, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Court below is set aside and it is held that the suit property which is the subject-matter of O.S. No. 542 of 1997 pending in the Court below being situate beyond the local limits of its territorial jurisdiction, the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain and proceed with the trial of this suit. Therefore, it is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff (who is respondent 1) in accordance with law, for the purpose of presentation thereof before the proper Court.