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