Karnataka High Court
Mrs Tasnemunisa W/O Abu Mohammed Hunnal ... vs Shri Danish S/O Dadasab Badami on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
CRP No. 100024 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100024 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MRS. TASNEMUNNISA
W/O. ABU MOHAMMED (HUNNAL UDUPI),
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CTS 8653A, SHREE NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016,
REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SHRI. KIFAYAT S/O. JAMALSAB SHAIKH,
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSIENSS,
R/O. PLOT NO.78, 5TH STAGE, PRESS COLONY,
HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH ALLANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. DANISH S/O. DADASAB BADAMI,
Digitally signed
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
R/O. 194, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR,
VISHAL PATTIHAL
NINGAPPA Date: BELAGAVI-590010.
PATTIHAL 2023.12.15
10:30:22
+0530
2. MRS. NAZHAT PARVEEN W/O. DADASAB BADAMI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 194, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER ON ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 3- PRELIMINARY
ISSUE DATED 13.02.2023 IN O.S. NO. 993/2016 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI & ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
CRP No. 100024 of 2023
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present civil revision petition by defendant No.2
assailing the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in
O.S.No.993/2016, on the file of the IV-Addl. Civil Judge,
Belagavi, whereby, additional issue No.3 was treated as
preliminary issue and held that the Court has pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their
ranking before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration that the
sale deed, dated 06.12.2004, executed by defendant No.1
in favour of defendant No.2, is illegal, invalid and not
binding upon the plaintiff, directing defendant No.2 to
handover possession of the suit property to the plaintiff
and further restrained defendant No.2 from alienating the
suit property. The suit was filed before the Civil Judge,
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
Belagavi and the suit was valued at Rs.4,70,000/- for the
purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee under Section 24(a)
& 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act, 1958 ("the KCF & SV Act" for short) and the Court fee
of Rs.31,425/- was paid.
4. The petitioner - defendant No.2 appeared
before the trial court, filed his objections and raised a
preliminary objection stating that the suit value of the
property at present is more than Rs.5,00,000/- and the
plaintiff has not valued the suit property properly and the
Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed
the issues and the additional issues, out of which the Trial
Court treated additional issue No.3 as a preliminary issue,
which reads as under:
"Whether this Court had pecuniary jurisdiction
to entertain this suit?"
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
6. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has rightly
valued the suit for Rs.4,70,000/- and the valuation made
by the plaintiff cannot be said to be improper and the
Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the trial
Court on preliminary issue, holding that the Court had
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the present
revision petition by defendant No.2.
8. Heard learned counsel Shri Vishwanath
Allannavar appearing for the petitioner and the learned
counsel Shri H.M. Dharigond appearing for the
respondents and perused the material on record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the suit of the plaintiff is for declaration,
possession and injunction, the sale deed is of the year
2004 and the valuation of the suit property in the sale
deed is Rs.4,70,000/-. However, as per Section 24(a) of
the KCF & SV Act, the plaintiff ought to have valued the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
suit property as per its actual market value as on the date
of the suit. Learned counsel would contend that the trial
Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit,
inspite agreeing that the value of the suit property was
more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel would contend
that the trial Court has misread the dictum laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of SUHRID SINGH @
SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH & ORS1 and
has failed to consider that in the said decision, it expressly
states that non-executant, not in a possession and he
seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid
but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to
pay an advalorem Court fee on the market value. Learned
counsel would contend that the conclusion arrived at by
the trial Court that the valuation made by the plaintiff on
the suit property at Rs.4,70,000/- is as per the sale
consideration is proper, is unjustifiable and liable to be set
aside.
(2010) 12 SCC 112
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would justify the order of the trial Court and
would contend that the prayer of possession being a
consequential relief, the suit of the plaintiff has been
rightly valued for Rs.4,70,000/- for the purpose of the
jurisdiction and Court fee and the valuation made by the
plaintiff cannot be said to be improper as rightly held by
the trial Court and would contend that the order passed by
the trial Court does not warrant any interference.
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, the point that would arise for consideration is as
to "whether the suit of the plaintiff is properly valued for
the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction?"
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival
contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The prayer sought in the plaint, which is
annexed to the petition, is to decree by declaring that the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
sale deed dated 06.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1
in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and not binding on
the plaintiff, directing defendant No.2 to handover the
possession of the suit property and restraining defendant
No.2 from alienating the suit property. The suit was valued
under Sections 24(a) & 26(c) of the KCF & SV Act, the
valuation made in the plaint is as per the sale deed, dated
06.12.2004. The trial Court on the preliminary issue held
that the trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain
the suit. Section 24 of the KCF & SV Act is the provision
applicable to the facts in the present case. Section 24 (a)
enumerates as under:
"24. Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a
declaratory decree or order, whether with or
without consequential relief, not falling under
section 25,-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and
for possession of the property to which the
declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the
market value of the property or on1 [rupees one
thousand] 1, whichever is higher;
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
14. Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, envisages
that where a prayer is made for declaration of title and for
possession of the property to which declaration relates, fee
to be computed on the market value of the suit property.
Section 7 of the KCF & SV Act, reads as under:
"7. Determination of market value.- (1) Save
as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under
this Act depends on the market value of any
property, such value shall be determined as on the
date of presentation of the plaint.
(2) The market value of land in suits falling
under sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31,
35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be
deemed to be,--
(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or
a definite share of an estate, paying annual
revenue to Government, or forms part of such an
estate and is recorded in the Deputy
Commissioner's register as separately assessed
with such revenue, and such revenue is
permanently settled-- twenty-five times the
revenue so payable:
(b) where the land forms an entire estate, or
a definite share of an estate, paying annual
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
revenue to Government, or forms part of such
estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such
revenue is settled, but not permanently-twelve and
a half times the revenue so payable:
(c) where the land pays no such revenue, or
has been partially exempted from such payment, or
is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such
revenue-fifteen times the net profits if any from the
land during the year next before the date of
presenting the plaint or thirty times the revenue
payable on the same extent of similar land in the
neighbourhood, whichever is lower;
(d) where the land forms part of an estate
paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite
share of such estate and is not separately assessed
as above mentioned or the land is a garden or the
land is a house site whether assessed to full
revenue or not, or is land not falling within the
foregoing description--the market value of the land.
Explanation.--The word "estate", as used in
this section means any land subject to the payment
of revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or
raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement
to Government, or which in the absence of such
engagement shall have been separately assessed
with revenue."
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
15. Plain reading of Section 7(1) enumerates that
the market value of any property shall be determined as
on the date of the presentation of the plaint, a conjoint
reading of Section 24(a) and Section 7(1) of the KCF & SV
Act, enumerates that the prayer for declaration of title and
for possession of the property to which declaration relates,
the market value of the suit property shall be determined
as on the date of presentation of the suit. The plaintiff has
valued the suit under Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act,
as per the valuation in the sale deed. As stated supra, as
per Sections 24(a) & 7(1) of the KCF & SV Act, the market
value to be determined is as on the date of presentation of
the suit. The defendant has placed a letter issued by the
Sub-Registrar to contend that the suit property is more
than Rs.5,00,000/-. The material on record placed by the
defendants establishes that the market value of the
property as on the date of filing of the suit is more than
Rs.5,00,000/-. In such circumstances, the valuation of the
suit property being more than Rs.5,00,000/-, the trial
Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
even in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
SUHRID SINGH, stated supra the Apex Court has held
that the non-executant, who is not in possession has to
pay an advalorem Court fee on the market value. The said
decision of the Apex Court was misconstrued by the trial
Court to arrive at a conclusion that the trial Court had
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The reasoning
and approach of the trial Court in arriving at such a
conclusion warrants interference by this Court, since the
trial Court has failed to consider that the suit falls under
Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act and the actual market
value as on the date of the suit as enumerated under
Section 7(1) of the KCF & SV Act is to be paid for the
purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of Court fee.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the
order of the trial Court on additional Issue No.3 needs to
be set aside and accordingly, the point framed for
consideration is answered holding that the suit of the
plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of pecuniary
jurisdiction and Court fee.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
16. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The civil revision petition is hereby
allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of the trial Court is
hereby set aside.
(iii) The trial Court to return the plaint and the
respondent is permitted to present the
plaint before the appropriate Court having
pecuniary jurisdiction in accordance with
law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNP, CT: UMD
