Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bharathi Prasad vs Sri. G Achuth Kumar @ G A Kumar on 18 October, 2022
Author: B. M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.20617/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SMT. BHARATHI PRASAD
W/O J M NARAYANA PRASAD
D/O LATE K GAVISETTY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.24, 9TH CROSS
K R LAYOUT, J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE
BENGALURU -560078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI. G ACHUTH KUMAR @ G A KUMAR
S/O LATE K GAVISETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT NO.303/10
6TH CROSS, 1ST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU -560 011.
ALSO R/AT 1150 N JUDD PLACE
CHANDLER ARIZONA
AZ 85226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MOBILE NO.1480628-3081.
2. SMT SUNDARA PARTHASARATHY
W/O LATE J. G. PARTHASARATHY
2
D/O LATE K GAVISETTY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO.A-206
PURVA BELMONT
KANAKAPURA ROAD
OPPOSITE METRO PILLAR
74 AND 75, J P NAGAR, 6TH PHASE
JARAGANAHALLI
BENGALURU -560078.
3. SMT RAMADEVI G
W/O LATE B M VISHWANATH
D/O LATE K GAVISETTY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
LICENSED PARALEGAL
LEGAL ASSISTANT TO ARJUN VISHWANATH
197, COUNTRY COURT BLVD
SUIT 201, BRAMPTON
ONTARIO CANADA, L6W 4P6
MOBILE 16472107137,
4. SMT SANDHYA VENKATESHWAR
W/O A G VENKATESHWAR
D/O LATE K GAVISETTY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.303/10/2
OUT HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR
6TH CROSS 1ST BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU -560011.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2022 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.5428/2022 I.E., ORDERS ON OFFICE OBJECTION
AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE COURT
FEE ON MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE
DATE OF THE SUIT AS PER SECTION 38 OF THE
KARNATAKA COURT FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT
(IMPUGNED AS ANNEXURE-A) BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT
3
PETITION, AND CONSEQUENTLY HOLD THAT THE COURT
FEE PAID BY THE PETITIONER AS PER FRESH VALUATION
SLIP IS PROPER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner's position is rather piquant. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.5428/2022 on the file of the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the civil Court']. The petitioner, along with her plaint, has filed an application for grant of ex parte injunction against the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property or creating third party interest therein. However, this application is not taken up for consideration because of the Court fee question.
The petitioner has paid the Court fee on the value for which the impugned sale deed is executed, but the civil Court has called upon the petitioner to pay the Court fee on the market value of the suit schedule 4 property for which the impugned sale deed dated 29.06.2006 is executed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the value that is contemplated under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 [for short, 'KCFSV Act'] is not the market value but the value for which the Deed is executed. He relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors' reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3308.
This Court, on a careful consideration of the circumstances in which the petitioner has approached this Court, is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application with the civil Court for reconsideration of the question on whether the value to be taken for the purposes of Section 38 of the KCFSV Act is the market value or the value for which the impugned sale deed is 5 executed. If the petitioner files such application, the civil Court must consider such application and the petitioner's application for temporary injunction and decide on such application within three weeks from today.
The petition stands disposed of with such liberty and directions.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-