Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

K. Nagaraj vs Sri. Muniswamy on 11 July, 2022

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

        WRIT PETITION NO.3351 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

K. NAGARAJ
S/O LATE H A KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.667/B
4TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS
VYALIKAVAL
MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU-571203

                                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SANGAMESH R B, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     SRI. MUNISWAMY
       S/O LATE DODDA ABBAIAH @ VENKATAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
       R/AT THIMMASETTYHALLI VILLAGE
       ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI
       SOMANATHANAHALLI POST
       HOSKOTE TALUK - 561204

2.     SMT.SHARDAMMA
       WIFE OF LATE H A KRISHNAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
                          2




3.   K SRINIVAS
     S/O LATE H A KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

4.   K CHANDRAIAH
     S/O LATE H A KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

5.   RAMESH
     S/O LATE H A KRISHNAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

6.   K MARUTHI
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

     RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6
     ARE RESIDING AT 667/B
     4TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS
     VYALIKAVAL, MALLESWARAM
     BENGALURU-561203

                                    .....RESPONDENTS

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.12.2018 PASSED IN
I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.808/2012 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                      ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.2 questioning the order of 3 the learned Judge passed on an application filed under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.

2. The grievance of the petitioner - defendant No.2 is that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff, who has sought relief of declaration based on the Will, is required to pay court fee in terms of Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The respondent No.1 - plaintiff has sought relief of declaration to declare him as absolute owner of the suit property as per the Will dated 30.06.2008. By way of consequential relief, perpetual injunction is sought. The learned Judge has rejected the said application, which is under challenge.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the order under challenge. 4

4. It is trite law that when a litigant is asserting right and title on the basis of a Will, the proper court fee is payable in terms of Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The dispute in such proceedings is in regard to validity or otherwise of the disputed Will and not properties covered under the Will. Therefore, the provisions of Section 24(a) and (b) are not applicable since the disputed Will is not capable to valuation. Therefore, the plaint is rightly valued at Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. I do not find any error in the order under challenge. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE NBM