Karnataka High Court
Rajesh Kallappa Chakadi vs Malu Nirmalkumar Desai on 13 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
CRP No. 100086 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 100086 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
RAJESH KALLAPPA CHAKADI,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: 305, 1ST STAGE, R.C. NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590 006.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MALU NIRMALKUMAR DESAI,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
Digitally signed
by V N BADIGER
Location: HIGH
2. SMITA NIRMALKUMAR DESAI,
VN COURT OF
KARNATAKA AFTER MARRIAGE
BADIGER DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.25
SMITA UDAY BADASAD,
11:30:32 +0530
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GOUDAR ONI,
A/P: GANDIGWAD,
TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 112.
3. BAHUBALI NIRMALKUMAR DESAI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
CRP No. 100086 of 2019
4. BHARAT NIRMALKUMAR DESAI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
5. AKSHATA NIRMALKUMAR DESAI,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
6. NIRMALKUMAR SHANTINATH DESAI,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
7. SANATKUMAR SHANTINATH DESAI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
8. AJITKUMAR SHANTINATH DESAI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.421/1,
PATIL GALLI, HALGA,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5)
(R6 & R8 - SERVED) (R7-PETITION DISMISSED)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE TRAIL COURT RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER ON IA NO.3 DATED 07.11.2017 PASSED IN ORIGINAL
SUIT NO.323/2014 BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR JUDGE
AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BELAGAVI, THIS REVISION
PETITION BE ALLOWED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
CRP No. 100086 of 2019
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A. No.3 in O.S.
No.323/2014 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Belagavi, defendant No.1 is before this Court.
2. Plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the relief of
declaration that the sale deed executed by defendants No.2
to 4 in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void and not
binding on them. In the said suit, defendant No.1 filed I.A.
No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.
Defendant No.1 stated that the plaintiffs had valued the suit
under Section 24(d) and 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees
and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act'), and
according to him, the court fee ought to have been paid on
the market value of the suit property on the date of filing of
the suit which was around Rs.20,00,000/- which is more
than the amount shown in the plaint. Learned counsel for the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
plaintiffs had relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh
and Others1. It was stated that the plaintiffs were not parties
to the document and they need not pay the court fee on the
market value of the property. The Trial Court considering the
law laid down by the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh's case
referred supra held that the plaintiffs being non-executants
had correctly valued the suit under Sections 24(d) and 26(c)
of the Act and had paid proper court fee on the plaint, and
that the plaintiffs need not pay ad valorem court fee on the
market value of the property as on the date of filing of the
suit or on the sale consideration amount mentioned in the
disputed sale deed. The Trial Court has held that there were
no material on record to show that the suit is not properly
valued and accordingly, dismissed the application.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/
defendant No.1 submits that Trial Court has failed to
consider that in the entire plaint there is no averment with
regard to whether they are in possession of the property and
AIR 2010 SC 2807
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
that aspect is not considered. He submits that if he is in
possession of the property, then the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Suhrid Singh's case referred supra, would
apply to the facts of the case, but whereas in the entire
plaint, there is no such averment, and as such, the Court is
not right in passing an order of dismissal of the application
filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
relies on an order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Mr. Bellacchi @ Sundari, Represented by her GPA
Holder Vs. Mrs. Gracy Fernandes Nee D'Souza, represented
by her GPA Holder in W.P. No.5409/2022 dated 05.09.2024,
whereby this Court considering the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court Suhrid Singh's case referred supra, had upheld
the order of the Trial Court that plaintiffs were not party to
the said document and the court fee paid by them is
sufficient and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel submits that the judgment in the above
referred case squarely applies to the facts of this case and
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the material on record. As per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Corut in Suhrid Singh's case referred supra,
if a party who is not an executant of the document and
who is in possession of the property need not pay the
court fee on the market value of the property. Now, before
this Court, defendant No.1 has raised a contention that,
the fact tht the respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of
the property or not is not claimed in the entire plaint. This
aspect was never raised by the defendant before the Trial
Court and, for the first time and by relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh's case
referred supra, such a contention is raised before this
Court. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case
and considering the application filed by the defendant No.1
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Trial Court has rightly
decided the application by dismissing the same, and this
Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned
order of the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the
following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16609
ORDER
i) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
ii) All pending I.As., in this petition shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
KMS
CT:BCK
