Karnataka High Court
Subhash Kumar Jain vs N Prakash on 4 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
WP No. 28329 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 28329 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SUBHASH KUMAR JAIN
S/O LATE MANIKCHAND JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1872,
VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VAGEESH N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. N. PRAKASH
S/O. GANACHARI LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT J.C.EXTENSION,
VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.
Digitally
signed by BS
RAVIKUMAR 2. MURTHY
Location: S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
3. SMT. GAYATHRI
W/O.MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
4. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
5. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
WP No. 28329 of 2018
6. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
7. KUMARI MANJULA
D/O GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
8. KUMARI RASHMI
D/O GANGAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
9. ANANDA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
10. SMT. THRIVENI
W/O ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
11. MASTER YASHWANTH
S/O ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
12. MASTER TILAK
S/O ANADNA,
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.11 AND 12 ARE MINORS,
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN
AND NEXT FRIEND FATHER ANANDA
13. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.8,
RAMAMANDIRA STREET,
VIJAYAPRUA, VIJAYPURA TOWN,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
WP No. 28329 of 2018
SRI. KARTHIK P.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10 AND
13;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.02;
RESPONDENT NO.11 AND 12 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
RESPONDENT NO.9)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
25.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
DEVANAHALLI, PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 IN O.S.NO.371/2016,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-O AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The defendant No.13 in O.S. No.371/2016 on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli has filed
this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order
dated 25.06.2018 by which, an application (I.A.No.10)
filed under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and
Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (henceforth referred to as 'the
Act' for short) read with Order XIV Rule 5 of Civil
Procedure Code was allowed-in-part.
2. The suit in O.S.No.371/2016 was filed for the
following reliefs:
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
"a) To pass a Judgment and decree directing
the defendant No.1 to 12 to execute the
Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff in terms of
the Registered Sale Agreement dated:
19.11.2011, Vide Document No.DNH-1-
04581/2011-12, Stored in CD No.245,
Registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Devanahalli, Bangalore by
receiving the remaining balance of sale
consideration or alternatively this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to order to execute the
sale deed through court in favour of the
plaintiff herein in respect of the schedule
property;
b) To declare the alleged sale deed dated
2.5.2016 said to be executed by the
defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.13 vide Document No.DNH-1-
00910/2016-17, Stored in CD No.594,
Registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural
District is not binding on the plaintiff.
c) To restrain the defendant No.13 from
alienating the suit Schedule Property or
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
creating a charge on it pending disposal of
the above suit;
d) To pass such other suitable orders as this
Hon'ble court deems fit under the
circumstances.
e) To award the cost of the suit."
3. The suit was contested by the defendant No.13.
He later filed an application under Section 11 of the Act
read with Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to
frame an additional issue regarding the payment of Court
Fee by the plaintiff and to try the said issue as a
preliminary issue.
4. This application was contested by the plaintiff
who contended that the suit property was an agricultural
land. He contended that the suit was filed for specific
performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.11.2011
and for consequential relief of declaration that the sale
deed executed in favour of the defendant No.13 did not
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
bind him. He contended that the valuation of the suit was
just and proper.
5. The Trial Court in terms of its impugned order
allowed the application in-part without specifying the relief
that was granted to the defendant No.13.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant
No.13 has filed this writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/
defendant No.13 contended that the suit was filed not only
for the relief of specific performance, but also for the relief
of setting aside the sale deed executed in his favour.
Therefore, both the reliefs needs to be separately valued.
He contended that the suit for the relief of setting aside
the sale deed had to be valued under Section 38 of the Act
and separate Court Fee ought to have been paid. Hence,
he contends that an issue ought to have been framed by
the Trial Court and it must have tried it as a preliminary
issue.
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein contended that the suit
property is an agricultural land. The Court Fee for the
relief of specific performance was paid under Section 40 of
the Act and as the suit property is an agricultural land, the
market value for the purpose of Section 38 of the Act had
to be determined in the manner provided under Section 7
of the Act. She contends that in view of Section 9 of the
Act, highest of the Court fee had to be paid and that the
plaintiff had accordingly done so and therefore there was
no error. She contends that the Trial Court had noticed
this fact and had specifically held that the Court fee paid
by the plaintiff is proper and sufficient. However, the Trial
Court allowed the application in-part without specifying the
relief that was granted to the defendant No.13.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the defendant No.13 and learned
counsel for the plaintiff.
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
10. A perusal of the application filed by the
defendant No.13 goes to show that the defendant No.13
prayed that an additional issue regarding the payment of
court fee payable by the plaintiff be framed and to try it as
a preliminary issue. In the affidavit accompanying the
application, the defendant No.13 reiterated his contention
and claimed that the plaintiff had sought for setting aside
the sale deed dated 02.05.2016 and therefore, the Court
Fee ought to have been paid under Section 38 of the Act.
11. It is relevant to note that the land in question is
an agricultural land and the plaintiff claimed to have
purchased it from the defendant Nos.1 to 12. Therefore,
when the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance
and also for setting aside the sale deed executed by the
defendant Nos.1 to 12 in favour of defendant No.13, the
suit ought to have been valued under Section 40 as well as
under Section 38 of the Act. As the suit property is an
agricultural land, the market value of the property has to
be determined in the manner provided under Section 7 of
NC: 2024:KHC:9050
the Act. If that is taken into account, then the court fee
payable for the relief of specific performance is higher than
the court fee payable for the relief of setting aside the sale
deed executed in favour of defendant No.13. Therefore, by
applying Section 9 of the Act, the highest of the Court Fee
had to be paid which in the present case is for the relief of
specific performance and the plaintiff has rightly done so.
12. There is no error committed by the Trial Court
in holding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is just and
proper. However, it is strange that the Trial Court allowed
the application in-part without indicating the relief granted
to the plaintiff. As defendant No.13 has not made out a
case to value the suit under Section 38 of the Act, no
indulgence could be shown to the defendant No.13. Hence,
I.A.No.10 filed by defendant No.13 is rejected in its
entirety.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ
