Karnataka High Court
Mr Jagadish Halashetti vs The Branch Manager on 8 June, 2010
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY or JUI\'E:V~2€'J'.1'f.1_'__J: " % BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE f WRIT PETITION NO.1§_650 OF2o1o_ BETWEEN: 'V 'V I 1 1 MR. JAGADISHHA-LAs.HE1fI*1;« s/0 SIDRAMMAP"PA,~. ' AGED ABOUT 36 f occ: ADVDCATH' -- ' ' 2 UJWALA, _ _ . D /o;J'A(}_._V 'E51351 ' AGED..ABQjUT 3,' 1,/2.Y.r:«ARs,} R5-I>irA.T BY P'E?:1TI'0.N'ER (FATHER). BOTH 'Rh/AT N.Q."28', G-FLOOR, 13'? ACROSS, j;MUT._rApPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION, _BANGALVORE;-32;. ...PETITIoNERs " S171. 'Shahkar, Adv., V' fQr"S__rI. R. Kothwal AdV.,) 1': THE'Es'RfiNCH MANAGER, LIC 'OEINDIA, BADAMI BRANCH OFFICE , BADAMI. 'A W/O BASAYYASWAMI RM. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE. 3 HAMPAYYA RM. S / O BASAYYASWAMI RM. AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE. 4 SHARADA R.M.. W/ O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE. RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO,4*~
ARE R/AT RAVIHAL, ' TQ. SHIRAGUPPA, 3 .. _ DISTRICT BELLi'\R'1'._. : V ~ ".«...RESP()NDENTS [By Sri. J. Nagaraj, Adv. fer ..
Sri. s.s. 'ra:t:wa1:A't:4ia1V.(;og.1m:'A;1v.- f¢.r'R2 to R4) This Wr1»t4Pévt;'_tieo1v;isfiled under articles 226 and 227 of the Consti?*.utir3'n_ Cf'"India":vprayingfltd quash the impugned order dated"'~.15.«i};_2O1Q_°pass'ed___in,5O.S.No.37/2008 by the Additioniéili' "C.if¢fil J'*gidge',';_'[Jr.Dn.) at Hungund, which is marked as' AnVI1e:>;:i.1je+I71'."-.__ _ ' ' This jaetition en for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' group thiSday,';.th(: Court made the following:
A »v44}3i:z§gi_11tiffs have filed this writ petition qixeefioniifiigicerrectness of the order dated 15.04.2010 V'~».passe<5i.,i__Eri O.S.N 0.37 / 2008 by the Additional Civil Judge Hungund, and have sought for quashing of the $2
2. The brief facts leading to the filing o?f'.rthis petition are as under:
The wife of first petitioner and mother of second petitioner diediiig a'Aroad'vvt_raffic accident on 29.01.2008. She was';se'rving, at SVM College, Iilkai, and the suit that Prior to her out 5 Life Insurance Policies in__ No.2 to 4 (mother, been shown as nominees premiums to the said policy salary.. _ ~ I '3. 'On " ,az:-count; of the demise of said husband and daughter, the lodged a claim for payment of the tinder the policies taken out by deceased l*..Srnt. Annapoorna. The first respondent herein denied on the ground that deceased had nominated respondents No.2 to 4 and petitioners were directed to 0?"
secure an order from competent court to enable thern to make the payment. On account of which the&4.pe'titionA~e"r's& filed a suit O..S.No.37/2008 before [Jr.Dn.}, Hungund, for declaragtiortof '"s_Ttatu.s_':
right as Class I legal heirs, and 4c--o:r'i'seque.:ri'i.i%..1v1' felii;g'1[""of perpetual injunction to restfainnrespoimdeiits No.2 to 4 from receiving the insuraneie auaount-.and other service benefit of deceased
4. The' the suit under Section 24[d) a:~coi;rt;:ees and Suits Valuation Act, H358' to as Court Fees Act for the sakealoftgrevity]'~anc!--"iiVvalued the suit at Rs.l,O0O/--
'~ courthfeev-of RS.25/- on the plaint.
i.l'_1_')l'eadings being completed, issues were V _ frarfied court on 25.11.2009 amongst which an ,::iss:eu,_e fegarding the vahiatien of the suit was also . fxsaméd and same reads as under: W "Whether the suit is properly valued and the"
court fee paid is sufficient?"
6. This issue was treated as a and after considering the rival contentions''raised'=by.Vthe 0' 0' parties, trial court by its orderj_"clated._ answered the issue in the"'---negative and.' avo'C'erding1y"V' directed the plaintiff to payppadfjvaloremheourt fee on the plaint within 15 days from said order. It is this order which present writ petition.
records of this writ petition this petition. fiieidoin 20.04.2010 and was Iisted beforjetlfie oonrton 22.04.2010 on which date interim iorder. o1;stay«._of the impugned order has been granted. issued to respondents have been served 'wagon al1*~tVt1Ae: respondents. Respondent No.1 is represented standing Counsel Sri.J.Nagaraj and respondents to 4 have remained unrepresented. The Counsel W representing respondents No.2 to 4 have alsoV_~-been served with the copy of the writ petition acknowledgement filed by petitioners' endorsement made by the Reglisltryr and representation on behalf of 4. 2
9. I have heard Senior Counsel appearing' and Sri.J .Nagaraj, learned "firslt~:VrVes'pondent.
10. for the petiticnersd the presumption under which trial oceeded is that the valuation don4e"oys.the.V suit is to be taken as correct established that same is not in the provision of the Court Fees Act. Hel'"'would'vsubmit by virtue of a solitary plea raised in V. thc___written statement filed by the first defendant _i_,e,, first"Arespondent herein that no proper court fee had " "been paid, an issue came to be raised by trial court and V :1) AIR 1971 SC Page 87 V ._ THE STATE OF U.P., vs. RAMKRISHAN BURMAN BY ms LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTEERS .j _f' ..
11. He would further elaborate his.*su'ot:r_1§.eSwto11s V 2 contend that judgment in the-._ case.. MYSORE PAPER MILLS QMITED répofted 1n;p2.goQ(413Karfif LJ 31 relied upon by trial vgholiy to the facts of the preseiTt"caae tiaeitgjround in the said case, suit hadebyeen that plaintiff was entitled -- towards cost of extra 'is-~--n}ot merely a suit for declaratiozit a suit with a prayer for reCoV_e1'y aT3:1oxt1vt1tA'Io_3»'r'epx1antification of the amount and he that said judgment cannot be facts of the case.
heard the learned Advocates appearing "' 'C J t sideration: Q5 for 'I' partiesi the foilowind points arise for mv 1') Whether the order dated 15.04.2010 in O.S.No.37/2008 by the Civil Judge Hungund, directing the pzatntgff to peg court fee on suit claim is reqw'red5_4tolconfirined, 0 reversed or modified?
ii} What order? V
13. In order to. gppreciflate icontentidony raised by the petitioners counsei 'i5evv..'-appropriate to extract the ;'pi':j;3risioi1.s {which pressed into service by€.theji_ul'earried.:Senio'r'Counsel namely Section 7, 24 Karnataira Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 0 "reads as under:
_ _ "Sh 'Determination of market value._ 7t__0f1}:,_A---sSave as othenvise provided, where the fee
-.payab1ver.Aunder this Act depends on the market property, such value shall be ""«.det.enr;i1'1ed as on the date of presentation of the V plaifit.
(2) The market value of land in suits falling under Sections 24[a], 24(b), 26(a], 27, 28, 29, 31.
$2 35(1), 35(2). 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 sheilliéjllbe deemed to be._ [a] xzoocx lb) xxxxx
(c) xxxxx 1 [d] xxxxx V» Explanation. xxxxx
24. Suits In 'a suit for declaratory decree or or without consequential 25_-
(a) p_rayer.__«isiforlafldeclaration and for llbrop-erty to which the V hhhh shall be computed on " 4' the of the property or on (rupees A clone tholiisanidj whichever is higher;
5 the' prayer is for a declaration and for A . ~l.conse.qi1enVtial injunction and the relief sought witli reference to any immovable property.
it be computed on one--half of the ' .Vlinarket value of the property or on (rupees one V _ _ thousand), whichever is higher:
" ;"'«.._(c)" xmoc V' '':(d) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee d\/ 1] shall be computed on the amount at whichtlie relief sought is valued in the plaint (rupees one thousand] whichever _
38. Suits for canceflaticjiliiofltie,¢'1fees,l.:_"
{1} In a suit for cancellationofla. decree_for L or other properiy._h'a,ving"'aV money"«,valu.c; or v ' other document purports "or-loperates to create, declare, ass_ign,'--~_li1nit "or._'e)§tinguisl'L, whether in pr~esent or infiwture, any right, title or interest in rno'i1.ey,yivnioev_able_Vor immovable property, feeshallv _be co"rripu'ted on the value of _t.'-lie V-.sul;_~ject"matteflof -the " suit, and such valuefishall "be€deemed to' :;.«-2;, who«le"-idecree for other document is " --so'ughtfi.to beycancelled,' the amount or value of _ .the-propertyjbr which the decree was passed ' ._or otliersddocuirnerzt was executed:
'L1,? a decree or other document is soizght to be cancelled, such part of the V.,.an1ount**orlvalue of the property. it decree or other document is such that " « "_"_v»._tlte"'lliabflity under it cannot be split up and . 'the relief claimed relates only to a particular "item of property belonging to the plaintiffs share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less.
V Explanation 1._ A suit to set an award shall be deemed to be a suit-bio 'set aside a decree within the n1ec_Lfr'iing..'_"' section. ' "
Explanation 2._ Injawsuit A' a decree and possessioniof Cmy pfopéfiy, '''i!'r'_1€ ' fee shall be computed as - isuit fora possession of such. property. V
14. This Court in the 0f__B. vs. B. VENKATA mo 'reported in AIR 1955 Mysore 1 18 hasheld foflowihng urfne foriwha direction to pay ' Q' granted does vnoti'enttitle to~e:rgforc'e"the realisation of the amount' the decree which may be passed; . who has control over ,-the fund" and 'competent to pay it is not a " party to 'suit. The adjudication of the right plaintiffs favour may suffice for the piaihtijfflgjetting the amount. The Oflicer in charge of the money is not interested in the person to whom payment is to be made it whether he is the plaintiffor any other and all it that he wants is a judicial recognition of the claim. The person who disputes the claim is A/ the defendant and.since the money is with him it does not seem to be necessary» A reasonable to call upon the plaintiff valorern Court--fee on the amollnt _V That contingency may arise declines to pay it and thel'pla'intff 'tot'; V enforce his claim for payment. V
15. In the case of "'i?g.jEEHUN1\it$A BEGUM AND OTHERS vs. THE MYsoriEllsTA:lfE 01+" WAIa«'s BY SECRETARI'a;§¥i'VD iz)T;i3¥izs'4vre;§erl.ed.iin 1969(2) Mysore LJ 344 it lies Zbeefilbeitiljtollthe.r--fo1§§ovlling effect:
that the properties did not'appe'rtain wakf but were private properties of the.;tllaint1;{}'"s themselves, and ; 'prayed V' a ' decree directing that the A "lie-oapropelrties mentioned in the plaint schedules be deleted from the list of wakfs in dated 227-1965. They valued the under Section 24(d) of the Mysore Coilrt Fees Act for the purposes of Court fee at ,:l"'Rs.26O describing the same as the value of the relief claimed and paid Court fee of Rs.18.75 Ps. Thereon. The Court has asked fig them by its order now sought to be revised pay Court fee on half the market valueyof-V V suit properties either under Section A under Section 26(a) of the Court « "I do not think much can said view that the platnt necessarily involves. '' prayer for declarationlof title. The inevitable because the board'_. inthe exercise of its already come to a conclusion or"v"dec.isi'ox_n.lwhether or not open' to correction: "o:t'he1'wise} that the declaration is to the plaintiffs removing the ejfect the "
..res.ult suit or the plaint must ' be regaI'd,eVdVas one for the relief of declaration together withllarelief consequential upon such which is neither for recovery of nor for an iryunction; nor does it re'late"': to any trade mark, book, picture, design, etc. This leads to only Clause Id} of V '.Section 24 within which the suit can properly it be brought." V and accordingly held that suit is to be va1ued.T".'under Section 24[d).
16. In BASALINGAPPA NINGAPPA us; " * L. DY. coM1vm., DHARWAR AND Aiurorjtisk (1 IKLJ 334 this Court hasljelct, J t "The subject matter sutt Lvrits-not::§ the immoveable 'be acquired, but the vctlédity of oevovis-itiort~:V;vroceedings. Hence:.,the '_suZy:'ect::» fall under Sectioh" of tag' ;A_et~7bv_tfeEl under Section to furnish the immoveable properties as feqt1ired- to Section 50 of the _ "Though " had wrongly valued the geggtt finder Section 24(1)), it was the duty of to apply the correct provision of " lavf': 1 g anculéu a.o'oofcting1y held that suit is to be valued under K ' e. sectionV"24{d). $/
17. Now coming to the facts of the present case:
It is seen from the perusal of the prayer' the plaint that plaintiff has sought for his status, to declare that thezipetiitionetjsfare the oniy legal heirs of deceased entitled' to receive the insurance policies described in Schedule jvvserxpricelHilaenefits of deceased Smt. is not for recovery of of declaration of status of entitle them to claim the by the first respondentin insurance policies issued by tiiern to ud'ec_e'a'sed' Srnt. Annapurna. The declaration , the instant case is to the following effect V are the only legal heirs of deceased ASrnt.v_.-Alvinapurna RM. and entitled to receive instivrance amount of Schedule 'A' and service » it 'beriefits of deceaseci Annapurna". [Emphasis supplied by me) When such being the factuai aspect, trial"-.eourt proceeded to hold that suit ought to be Section 38 of the Act on the basis that Within other documents "as definedllunderSection:
the Act" that the plaintiff has -for onlgz'.dvecIaf;ati'on"~ -' of his status as to deciare'l"ea:s»theyV"até§"legal: heirs of deceased AnnapurnaL;Rg_.M._;'tllltijtg; of said declaration may for money benefits to any loan. In this regard to extract the judgrnlentl thellcase of KEB vs. M/s. reported in ILR 1989 reads as under. I l "T'nere is no dqflculty in understanding the V Section in so far as it relates to ldecreeforelz money or other property having money The difficulty arises only when it refers to it .. , other document which in turn purports or operaues it create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property 4/ 18 and when fee shall be computed on the value-of the subject matter of the suit and such value' A' be deemed to be, if the whole decree_.Ior"oVther document is sought to be cancelled, it l value of the property for passed or other document Therefore, the key to the 'interpretatiQn"lies_'in the h two conditions incorporated' in the Section. The document is executed whichl"in,_'tuit*niqolition on the part of _.perso'n's- to the docurrientl ' what was involved it nominating a pai"ticu--lrlfj;perfis%t;'n. therecipient of the benefits under the Polity. The declaration sought? ':j're_4ference to nullifying that effect was to extinguish the the 'person nominated to receive the it the instant case also plaintiffs are not only *--l«3.Z'jV»-v'««___"~».seekingV__erelief of declaration of their status but also further declaration that plaintiffs alone are .,,entitled to receive insurance amount of policies in $32 question and service benefits of deceased_..___Smt. Annapurna. Hence, the prayer of petitioner declaration simplicitor cannot be accepted. V'
19. At this juncture thehlgearned submits that plaintiffs restrict' declaration only to the status and would not prayer in paragraph 9{-3}' "entitled to receive 'A' and service benefits- and submits to the said filed by the Counsel on record. said submission made by the S_enior"{3.oL111sel as referred to supra restricting ' in the plaint only for declaration of .offij._h.e"plaintiffs and agreeing not to press for the relief declare that the plaintiffs would be entitled to .receive the insurance amount of Schedule A and service 'benefits of deceased Annapurna, this court is of the Q...» 20 considered View that plaintiffs would be entitled tqyalue the suit under Section 24(d) of the Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, vafiued and court fee paid thereon' ii1.t_Ir1e V be sufficient.
In View of the above, 'ifolloizifing V (1) Writ petitie'ni'_is
(ii) Thsé '_c:rd<i:'_:: court dated set aside in View of the by the learned Senior for the petitioners If¢StiiCti'ng.tIie prayer to declaration of status " ' i only.
'i ' as to costs.
35% Iud§5 u .4: " "ca