Karnataka High Court
Smt Renuka vs Sri R Narayana Rao on 30 November, 2022
Author: B. M. Shyam Prasad
Bench: B. M. Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.20524/2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN :
SMT. RENUKA
W/O VENKATESH T K
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,
VIRGONAGAR POST,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560049.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SRI R NARAYANA RAO
S/O LATE RAMA RAO K
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST
BENGALURU-560049.
2. SMT T S SUJATHA
W/O N K RAVEENDRA
AGED ABOUT 52 Y3ARS,
R/AT MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT
DEVASANDRA VILLAGE
K R PURAM
BENGALURU EAST
BENGALURU-560036.
... RESPONDENTS
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ANNEXURE-E DATED 23.5.2022 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.922/2022 BY THE IV ADDL SR CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.922/2022 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District , Bengaluru (for short, 'the civil Court'). The petitioner has impugned the civil Court's order dated 23.05.2022, and the civil Court by this order has called upon the petitioner to evaluate the schedule property on the market value including the value of the standing building. The civil Court has passed this order at the very threshold even before issuance of notice and with certain observations on the maintainability of the suit.
Sri G. Janardhana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner cannot really 3 pursue with the grievance that the subject property must be valued with the aid of Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Elfreeda Winnifred D'Souza v. Robin D'Souza and Others' reported in ILR 2022 KAR 529. However, Sri.G.Janardhana submits that this Court must intervene insofar as the direction to value the construction as a commercial property drawing this Court's attention to the plaint averment in paragraph 8 and the civil Court's observation on the maintainability of the suit. He argues that the petitioner has only averred that there is construction without really describing the nature of the construction and therefore, the civil Court could not have observed that there must be valuation of the commercial building in the subject property.
4
The civil Court's observation on the nature of the construction in the subject property could be justified but that must be considered after the respondent - defendant enters appearance and takes a stand on the nature of the subject property. At this stage, the petitioner must necessarily furnish the details of the constructions as he would aver and the valuation of such construction according to the correct market value. Insofar as the land, the petitioner has already furnished certain details of the valuation slip now filed.
In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petition must be disposed of granting leave to the petitioner to file a revised [a fresh] valuation slip not only on the land but also of the construction with the details thereof as would be necessary to justify such valuation. The petitioner is granted leave to file such valuation slip within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of 5 this order. This Court must, in the interest of justice, observe that merits of the suit must be considered independent of the civil Court's observation on the maintainability of the suit.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA/-
Ct:sr