Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimhamurthy vs Megacity(Bangalore) Developers on 16 September, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.19194/2014 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2. SRI JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
3. SMT. PADMA,
D/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
4. SMT. SHANTAMMA,
D/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
5. SMT. CHIKAMMA,
D/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
6. SMT.PREMA,
D/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
7. SMT. PARVATHAMMA,
D/O.LATE BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HAMPAPURA VILLAGE,
MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
KENGERI HOBLI,
2
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-562 109. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.N.NITISH, ADV. FOR
SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN)
AND:
1. MEGACITY (BANGALORE) DEVELOPERS
AND BUILDERS LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.120, MEGA TOWER, K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 027.
2. RAMESH H.R.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. SRI K.RAMAIAH,
RESIDING AT HODAKE HOSAHALLI,
MALOOR HOBLI,
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DT.2.4.2014 AT ANNX-B PASSED IN
F.R.NO.05/277/2014 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) BANGALORE RURAL DIST., BANGALORE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Considering that the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in F.R.No.OS/277/2014 are before this Court on an order relating to Court fee prior to issue of summons to the 3 defendants by the Court below, the petition is taken up for consideration and is being disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioners, as the plaintiffs in the suit are seeking for a declaration that the sale deed dated 27.06.2006 is illegal, void, without authority and not enforceable in law. Considering that the name of the petitioners is also indicated as the vendors in the sale deed, the Court below, on taking note of the office note has accepted the same and has arrived at the conclusion that the deficit Court fee is liable to be paid as the plaintiffs are parties to the document.
3. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the very averments made in the plaint and the prayer sought therein is on the contention that the petitioners had not executed any Power of Attorney authorizing the sale of the property and therefore, the sale deed could not have been executed. The said aspect would assume importance to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners are in fact parties to the document or whether a person who is unauthorized has incorporated their names and executed 4 the document. This issue can only be decided based on the evidence that would be tendered before the Court below.
4. Therefore, at this juncture, the order as made by the Court below dated 02.04.2014 is not justified as it is premature. The same is set aside. However, the issue relating to payment of appropriate Court fee is left open to be considered at a later stage in the suit. In this regard, the Court below shall frame a issue relating to Court fee on appearance of the defendants and the stand taken by them and the said issue could be decided based on the evidence and thereafter, an appropriate order be passed. Hence, at this juncture, the Court below shall register the suit and issue summons to the defendants.
In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST