2019 Supreme(Kar) 1615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G.NARENDAR, J.
Smt Vasanthi Shettigarthi, W/o Krishnappa Shettigara – Appellant
Versus
K Balachandra Rao, S/o Late K. Ramakrishna Rao - Respondent
Writ Petition No.56083 of 2016 (GM CPC)
Decided on : 28-05-2019

Headnote:

Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Mysore Court Fees Act, 1900 - Section 4(iv)A - Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 - Section 17 - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Recover possession of suit schedule property - Whether defendant proves that court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain suit - Whether defendant proves that court fee paid is insufficient - Whether in present or in future any right title or interest in money movable or immovable property - Whether in present or in future any right title or interest in money movable or immovable property fee shall be computed on value of subject matter of suit and such value shall be deemed to be - Whether said expression means market value of property as on date of presentation of plaint or value stated in document - Case of plaintiffs is that deceased plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are husband and wife and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are unmarried daughters of plaintiffs 1 & 2 - Plaintiffs contended that deceased plaintiff No.1 was owner of suit schedule property and that said property was granted to him by orders of Land Tribunal - It was contended that deceased plaintiff No.1 was person of low IQ and susceptible social behavior and therefore plaintiffs 2 to 5 were eking out their livelihood as coolies - It was contended that plaintiffs 1 & 2 approached defendant to initiate legal proceedings against sister of deceased plaintiff no.1 to recover possession of suit schedule property and that said suit came to be compromised and as a result of said compromise deceased plaintiff No.1 relinquished a small portion of land in favor of his sister – Held, This Court as stated supra in case has held that in order determine court fee payable by plaintiff Court has to first ascertain substantial relief sought for in plaint and that if a substantive relief is claimed though clothed in garb of a declaratory decree with a consequential relief Court is entitled to see what is real nature of relief and if satisfied that it is not a mere consequential relief but a substantive relief by itself it can demand proper court fee on that relief irrespective of arbitrary valuation put forth by plaintiff in plaint - This Court has further held that a duty is cast on Trial Court to examine whether relief sought for is an ancillary relief to the main relief and that if it is so plaintiff has to be charged only on value of main relief as mandated under Section 6 of KCF & SV Act and further determination has to be arrived in manner provided for under provision of KCF & SV Act, relief is required to be valued in that manner only - This Court while proceeding further has interpreted provisions of Section 38 of KCF & SV Act and has observed in paragraph that provisions of Section 38 refers to subject matter of suit - In that view of matter it was incumbent upon Trial Court to determine as to whether expression market value referred to in Plant refers to market value of property as on date of presentation of plaint or value stated in document which is before Court - This Court has further placed reliance on provisions of Section 7 of KCF & SV Act which provides for determination of market value - Provisions of Section 7 of KCF & SV Act provides for various types of properties and it was incumbent upon respondent who has raised question of inadequacy of court fee and jurisdiction to demonstrate a case that market value as required to be determined under Section 7 is of a higher valuation and is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of Court as stipulated under Section 17 of Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964 - It is seen that Trial Court has not conducted any inquiry as required and mandated under Section 7 of KCF & SV Act - It is no more res integral that when a legislation provides for a particular act to be performed in a particular manner then same is required to be performed in said manner only - In instant case admittedly Trial Court has not conducted any exercise nor is there any material forthcoming to demonstrate fact that defendant on whom onus rests to demonstrate that Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction or court fee paid is insufficient has failed to place any material in corroboration of his contentions - Reliance by Trial Court on body of plaint without reference to valuation slip is in considered opinion of Court vitiated by arbitrariness - In that view of matter relief sought by petitioners in this writ petition requires to be considered liberally - Writ petition is allowed