Karnataka High Court
Sri K Harindranath Reddy vs Smt Prabhavathi on 9 September, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.40202 OF 2015 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. HARINDRANATH REDDY
SON OF SRI. H.P. KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.97
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
...PETITIONER
( BY SMT. PARVATHY R. NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. UDITA
RAMESH ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES )
AND:
1. SMT. PRABHAVATHI
WIFE OF LATE K.N. MOHANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9,
CAMBRIDGE ROAD,
ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560 008.
2. SRI. C.N. KRISHNA REDDY
SON OF LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.180,
DOUBLE ROAD,
BINNAMANGALA I STAGE,
2
INDIRANAGAR II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 038.
SINCE DEAD REP. BY LRS
2(a) K.N.PREMAVATHY
W/O C.N.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
2(b) CHARITHA
D/O C.N.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2(c) HEMA
D/O C.N.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
2(d) MANJUNATH
S/O C.N.KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.19,
C.N.K. REDDY GARDEN,
CHOLANAYAKANA HALLI,
HEBBAL, R.T.NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 032.
3. SRI. K.M. PURUSHOTHAMA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
BANGALORE-560 033.
3(a). SMT. SUMITRA P. REDDY
WIFE OF LATE K.M. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
3(b). SMT. ASHA REDDY
D/O LATE K.M. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3(c). CHITRA P REDDY
D/O LATE PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
3
3(d). K.P. GOWTHAM REDDY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.15,
7TH CROSS, 'B' STREET
JAI BHARATH NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 033.
4. SRI. K.M. MADHAVA REDDY
SON OF LATE K. MUNINANJAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
NO.6, N.G.E.F. LAYOUT,
SADANANDANAGAR,
INDIRANAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 038.
5. SRI. H.P. KRISHNA REDDY
SON OF PILLA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.97,
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 038.
6. SRI. VENUGOPALA REDDY
SON OF SRI. H.P. KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.97
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
7. SRI. DWARAKANATH REDDY
SON OF SRI. H.P. KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.97,
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
4
8. SMT. BHARATHI DEVI
WIFE OF LATE RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.97
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
9. SMT. BRINDA DEVI
WIFE OF SRI. D.N. VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.97
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
10. SMT. CHANCHALA DEVI
WIFE OF NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.97
5TH CROSS, II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 038.
11. SRI. G.N. CHANDRASHEKAR
SON OF LATE G.R. LAKSHMANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.4/1,
BERLIE STREET CROSS,
LANGFORD TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 025.
12. SRI. G.L. RAJASHEKAR
SON OF G.N. LAKSHMANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.4/1,
BERLIE STREET CROSS,
LANGFORD TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
5
(BY SRI. G.V.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.2(a) TO 2(d) AND 3(a)
TO 3(d);
VIDE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NO.12 IS DISPENSED WITH;
VIDE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 11 IS DISPENSED WITH
CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
23.09.2019)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS
DATED 26.06.2015 AND 04.09.2015 (ANNEXURE-G AND
ANNEXURE-J1) PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE IN XXXVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY IN
O.S.NO.6922 OF 1996.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the Orders dated 26.06.2015 and 04.09.2015 - Annexures 'G' and 'J1' respectively passed by the Court of XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (for short, 'Trial Court') in O.S. 6 No.6922/1996. By Order dated 26.06.2015, an application filed by the learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.4 to 9 (stated as plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 in the said Order) under Sections 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act of 1958'), seeking to issue notice to the State Government or such other authority for the purpose of determination of market value of the suit schedule property in order to determine the additional court fees, if any, payable by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 was rejected. By Order dated 04.09.2015, the Trial Court rejected an application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') to take on record an endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar / Public Information Officer with cost.
2. The suit in O.S. No.6922/1996 was filed for relief of declaration that the property described in the suit schedule formed part of the estate of late Sri K.M.Janardhana Reddy and consequently, the plaintiffs had inherited the said property and for perpetual injunction 7 restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.
3. The suit property was a tomb of late Sri K.M.Janardhana Reddy, who died in July 1978 and his ancestors/family members who were laid to rest. The plaintiffs claimed that they were related to the said Sri K.M. Janardhana Reddy and claimed that this property was in their possession and enjoyment. They alleged that the defendant No.1 is the wife of Sri K.N.Mohan Reddy, son of late Sri K.M. Narayana Reddy, who was one of the brothers of late Sri K.M. Janardhana Reddy. In view of certain dispute over title to the tomb of Sri K.M. Janardhana Reddy and his family members, the present suit was filed.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants, whereupon issues were framed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed issue Nos.5 and 6 as preliminary issue and in terms of the Order dated 17.02.2014, answered preliminary issue No.5 in the affirmative and preliminary issue No.6 in the negative and directed the plaintiffs to 8 value the suit based on the market value of the suit schedule property by producing the valuation certificate of the Government and to pay the deficit court fee. At this stage, an application was filed by the learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.4 to 9 under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act of 1958 to issue notice to the State Government for determination of the market value of the suit schedule property in order to determine the additional court fees, if any, payable by the plaintiffs. The said application was opposed by the defendants and the Trial Court after considering the contentions urged, rejected the same in terms of the Order dated 26.06.2015. Thereafter another application was filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC., seeking to accept an endorsement issued by the Sub-Registrar / Public Information Officer to the effect that there was no guideline value prescribed for the suit schedule property, which is a tomb site. That application was also rejected by the Trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by the said Orders dated 26.06.2015 and 04.09.2015, the present petition is filed. 9
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff No.6 after arguing the petition at length, submitted that the petitioner wanted to value the market value of the suit property in the year 1996 at a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and undertakes to pay the court fee on such market value. He has filed a memo to that effect.
7. In view of the aforesaid memo, the impugned Orders dated 26.06.2015 and 04.09.2015 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.6922/1996 are set aside. Consequently, the Trial Court is directed to accept the valuation of the suit property at a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- as proposed by the petitioner and permit the petitioner to pay the ad valorem court fee under Section 24(b) of the Act of 1958. It will be open however for the Trial Court to recover applicable Court fee if it is found that the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient or if the market value of Rs.1,00,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner herein / plaintiff No.6 is incorrect.
10
8. Since the aforesaid suit is filed in the year 1996, the Trial Court is directed to accept the same and take up the same on day-to-day basis and dispose off the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma