SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 50301

W.P. NO.29445 of 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.29445 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

K. SHANKAR

S/O KALEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

R/AT NO.942/B, 4TH MAIN

KALIDASANAGARA, HOSAKEREHALLI

BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE

BENGALURU-560 085

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM R. HATTARAKIHAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. H. VENKATESH

S/O C. HANUMANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

R/AT NO.1, 1ST MAIN ROAD

HOSAKEREHALLI, BENGALURU-85

2. SMT. M. LALITH

W/O J. NAGARAJ

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

R/AT NO.60, 12TH MAIN ROAD

RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE STREET

RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGARA

BENGALURU-50

3. N. GIRISH

S/O LATE MANCHAIAH

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

R/AT NO.57, 8TH CROSS

12TH MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK

SRINAGARA, BENGALURU-50

& RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;

R1-DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 9.3.2020)

W.P. NO.29445 of 2017

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE

NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED

27.4.2017 PASSED ON OFFICE OBJECTION REGARDING PAYMENT

OF COURT FEE IN O.S.NO.2995/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF

THE 66TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, VIDE

ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITION AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN

8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

1.

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

<a) issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the

impugned order dated 27.4.2017 passed on office

objection

regarding

payment

of

court

fee

in

O.S.No.2995/2017 pending on the file of the 66th Addl.

City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-67), Bengaluru, under

Annexure-A to the petitioner, and;

b) Grant such other appropriate order/orders as deem

fit by this Hon9ble Court to the facts and circumstances

of the case, in the interest of justice.=

2.

O.S.No.2995/2017 had been filed seeking for the

following reliefs:

i.

Declaring that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of

the suit schedule property; and

ii.

To declare that the sale deed dated 25.2.2016

executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of 3rd

defendant in respect of suit schedule property is

not binding upon the Plaintiff; and

iii.

To direct the 3rd defendant to quit and hand over

the vacant possession of the suit schedule

property to the Plaintiff;

3

iv.

To grant permanent injunction restraining the

defendants No.2 & 3 not to interfere in to the suit

schedule property; and

v.

Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon9ble

Court deems fit to grant under the facts and

circumstances of the case, including an order as to

the costs of this Suit, in the interest of justice and

equity.

3.

Office of the trial Court raised an objection as regards

the payment of Court fee on the ground that the Court

fee had to be paid on the present market value of the

schedule property. The trial Court after hearing the

Plaintiff by relying on the decision in the case of

MEHABOOBA SAB -v- GOWDAPPA [1974 VOL-II

KLJ JR.80 SHORT NOTES 305] held that since the

Suit is one for cancellation of a sale deed, Court fee

would have to be paid on the market value of the

property.

4.

Sri.Parashuram.R, learned counsel for the petitioner-

plaintiff before the trial Court submits that there is no

relief for cancellation which has been sought for. What

the Plaintiff has sought for is only for a declaration that

the Sale deed dated 25.02.2016 executed by defendant

4

No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the

Plaintiff which does not amount to seeking for

cancellation since the Plaintiff is not a party to the said

sale deed. Hence, the only relief that Plaintiff could seek

was a declaration. Apart therefrom Plaintiff has sought

for declaration and possession of the suit Schedule

property, and as such, the Plaintiff has valued the Suit

in terms of the market value of the property as per a

contemporaneous sale deed dated 25.02.2016, which is

a sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of

defendant No.3 where the value of an identical property

is shown to be sold at Rs.16,40,000/-.

5.

Based on the above, he submits that the valuation of

the Suit was to be made and has been made in terms of

Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit

Valuation Act (8Act9 for short) and the Court fees has

already been paid on the market value.

6.

Sri.K.S.Venkatarama, learned counsel for respondents

No.2 and 3 fairly concedes that Section 38(1) would not

be applicable as long as the Court fee is paid on market

5

value of the property as on the date of the Suit, the

Court fee paid would be sufficient. He submits that this

value would have to be determined by the trial Court.

7.

Heard

Sri.Parashuram.R,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner and Sri.K.S.Venkatarama, learned counsel for

the respondents. Notice to respondent No.1 has been

dispensed with by order dated 9.03.2020.

8.

Having gone through the plaint, office objections and

the impugned order, I am of the considered opinion that

the Trial Court fell in error by applying the provision of

Section 38(1) of the Act by holding that the prayer

which has been sought for is one for cancellation of sale

deed. Prayer No.2 which relates thereto which is

reproduced hereinabove would indicate that what is

sought for is a declaration of the sale deed dated

25.02.2016 executed by defendant No.2 in fav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top