( 1 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 2221 of 1982 is filed by defendant-2 and is directed against the order dated 8. 7. 1982 of the XII Additional City civil Judge, Bangalore in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 brought by respondents 1 to 3 as plaintiffs in that suit. Civil Revision Petition No. 2995 of 1982 is filed by the State of Karnataka against the very same order of the learned Judge. But, in that case the State has filed a memo on 30. 3. 1983 praying for permission to withdraw the same, which has given rise to Writ Petition no. 7525 of 1983 by one Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, an Advocate of this Court. In the course of my order hereafter, I will refer to those who are parties in O. S. No. 8041 of 1980 by their array in that suit, the State of Karnataka, petitioner in c. R. P. No. 2995 of 1982 which is respondent-1 in Writ Petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the State and Sri G. P. Shivaprakash, petitioner in Writ petition No. 7556 of 1983 as the petitioner.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the several questions that arise in these cases, that are connected, some of which are even novel and appear to have arisen for determination for the first time before a High Court in the Country, it is necessary to notice the salient facts in the first instance.

( 3 ) ON 15. 10. 1973 Muthuvallies of a Wakf called 'aga Ali Askar Wakf created by one Ali askar of Bangalore, paternal grand father of sir Mirza Ismail, one of the illustrious dewans of old Mysore, with the approval of the Karnataka Board of Wakfs, defendant-5 leased out an extensive immovable wakf property bearing municipal No. 25 situated on Sankey Road, a posh locality of Bangalore City, consisting of vacant land measuring about 1,65,762 sq. ft. or about 3 acres 8 guntas with an existing old building thereon known as 'baqarbad' to defendant-1 on the terms and conditions stipulated in the lease deed of that date. On 13. 9. 1974, defendant-1 assigned the said lease to defendant-2 who had thereafter obtained its extension from the Muthuvallis and defendant- 5 for 90 years.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid deeds and their extension, defendant-2 demolished the existing old building and has constructed a 'five star' hotel making heavy investments over the same and is running a hotel under the name and style of 'windsor Manor' defendant-4 from about 1982.

( 5 ) ON 15. 9. 1980, the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of Shia Muslims, have brought o. S. No. 8041 of 1980 in the Court of the City civil Judge, Bangalore (i) for a declaration that the lease deeds and the assignment were null and void and were not binding on them; (ii) for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from entering upon the suit schedule property or otherwise altering its condition and (iii) for a mandatory injunction to restore the property to its original condition' as w. as practicable in the circumstances of the case. On the valuation and Court fee, with which alone we are concerned in these cases, the plaintiffs valued their suit at Rs. 26,000/- and paid a Court fee of Rs. 2,600/- on their plaint. Along with their plaint, the plaintiffs also filed a separate valuation slip.

( 6 ) IN its written statement, defendant-2 pleaded that the plaintiffs had deliberately undervalued the suit and had not paid the proper Court fee payable thereon under the karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) Apart from this, defendant-2 also filed a separate application I. A. No. III on 29. 9. 1980 before Court to determine the proper valuation and Court fee paid which was opposed by the plaintiffs. In this view, the learned Judge heard both sides on the question of valuation and Court fee paid on the plaint ana made a considered order on 11. 12. 1981 which will be hereafter referred to as the first order calling upon the plaintiffs to properly value their suit and pay the deficit Court fee thereon on or before 16. 12. 1981. The plaintiffs challenged the said orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document