The central legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of court fee in a partition suit is based on the market value of the property or a specified amount, and the plaintiff's allegations in the plaint are crucial for determining the proper valuation and payment of court fee.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 3/3/2021 passed in O.S.No.17/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Kumta, whereby the preliminary issue framed pursuant to I.A.No.V in relation to payment of Court fee was answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent/plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and declaration in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.2 in the said suit and at his instance a issue relating the Court fee was framed and treated by the Trial Court as a preliminary issue and answered in favour of respondent/plaintiff vide impugned order dtd. 3/3/2021 by holding as under :

"ORDERS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE The following preliminary issue is framed in view of I.A.No.5filed by the defendant no.2 under Order XIV Rule 1 and 5 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC which reads as follows :- 1. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper?

2. Heard both sides on the aforesaid preliminary issue framed in respect of payment of Court fee. The defendant no.2 has raised the said aspect of Court fee and not chosen to adduce any evidence on the above said preliminary issue. The plaintiff has also not adduced any evidence in view of non adducing evidence on behalf of defendant no.2 in this aspect.

3. The materials on record reveals that, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dtd. 9/1/2015 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is not binding upon her and also sought relief of partition and separate possession of her 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property subject to metes and bounds. The defendant no.2 in this case has contended that, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. The materials on record also reveals that, the defendant no.2 has previously filed I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of CPC r/w Sec. 11 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 seeking rejection7of the plaint and this Court has dismissed the said application and against the said Order of dismissal, the defendant no.2 has filed Civil Revision Petition No.10062/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the same was disposed off wherein liberty is given to the defendant no.2 to file necessary application to consider the issue on Court fees as preliminary issue and directed this Court to consider such issue without being influenced by the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said Revision Petition. Accordingly, the defendant no.2 has filed the said application and the said application filed as per I.A.No.V was partly allowed by this Court and the above said preliminary issue is framed.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record. 5. The following points arose for consideration of the Court :- 1. Whether the defendant no.2 proves that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient and the preliminary issue has to be answered in the negative? 2. If so, what order?

6. My answer to the above points are as under: - Point No.1 : In the Negative, Point No.2 : As per the final order, for the following:-

REASONS 7. POINT NO.1: 3. The materials on record reveals that, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit seeking relief of declaration that the Sale Deed dtd. 9/1/2015 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 is not binding upon her and also sought relief of partition and separate possession of her 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property subject to metes and bounds. The defendant no.2in this case has contended that, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. The materials on record also reveals that, the defendant no.2has previously filed I.A.No.III under Order VII Rule 11(c) and (d) of CPC r/w Sec. 11 of Karnataka Court Fee