Karnataka High Court
Smt. Surekha vs Bharatesh on 13 August, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11529
WP No. 100722 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 100722 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUREKHA W/O. SUBHASH JAKKANNAVAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SHIVABASAV NAGAR,
BEHIND SBI BRANCH,
NEAR DHARMANATH JAIN MANDIR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
PRASHANT SUBHASH JAKKANNAVAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/A. NO.257/21/2, "PARAMPARE",
5TH MAIN ROAD, OFF BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
KEMPEGOUDA NAGAR, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560019.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
Date: 2024.08.19
15:04:02 +0530
1. BHARATESH S/O. BANDU JANAJ
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAWAN SOUNDATTI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SHANTABAI W/O. BANDU JANAJ
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BAWAN SOUNDATTI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. PRAKASH S/O. BAPU JANAJ
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11529
WP No. 100722 of 2018
R/O. BAWAN SOUNDATTI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. VIDYASAGAR S/O. BAPU JANAJ
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O. BHARATESH VIDYALAY (GURUKUL),
BELLAD BAGEWADI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SUNANDA W/O. GUNDAPPA GAVARAM @ GOURAI
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ABDULLAT, TQ: SHIROL,
DIST: KOLHAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 - SERVED AN UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R5 - HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO,
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAIBAG AT RAIBAG IN
O.S.NO.192/2016, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND THEREBY DIRECT
THE COURT BELOW TO FRAME THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
ISSUES AND DEAL THE SAME AS PRELIMINARY ISSUES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11529
WP No. 100722 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner is the fifth defendant in O.S.No.192/2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Raibag [for short 'the civil Court']. The petitioner is aggrieved by the civil Court's order dated 17.01.2018. The civil Court by this order has rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC requesting the civil Court to frame additional Issues as regards the valuation of the suit properties and its jurisdiction to try the suit. The civil Court, after referring to the rival pleadings as regards the valuation, has opined that the question of jurisdiction will not arise because the valuation of the subject matter would be more than Rs.5,00,000/- [Five Lakhs].
2. Sri. Chetan S. Munnoli, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the civil Court's order because even if the value of the subject matter is more than Rs. Five Lakhs, the Court fee payable would be dependent not only on the value of the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11529 WP No. 100722 of 2018 subject matter but also on whether the first respondent is able to demonstrate that the Court fee paid on such valuation is proper and correct. The learned counsel submits that even if the value of subject matter is more than Rs.5,00,000/- [Five Lakhs] and therefore, within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil Court, the question of valuation would be crucial for deciding the payment of Court fee under Section 35 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 [for short, the 'Court Fees Act']. The learned counsel canvasses that the Court fee payable would be under Section 35(1) or 35 (2) of the Court Fees Act based on whether the first respondent is able to demonstrate that she is in joint possession of the subject properties.
3. The merits of these contentions must necessarily be examined in the light of the fact that the first respondent has listed about 19 immovable properties [including agricultural lands and residential properties] stating that the value of these properties would be Rs.18,00,000/- [Eighteen Lakhs] and that because she is entitled to a half share [which is denied by the other side] the value of her share in -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11529 WP No. 100722 of 2018 these properties will be Rs.9,00,000/- [Nine Lakhs], and hence, the court fee is paid accordingly.
4. As against this specific assertion, the petitioner has asserted that the first respondent has valued the subject properties at Rs.9,00,000/- [Nine Lakhs] and she is seeking half share and therefore, the value of the dispute would be below Rs.5,00,000/- [Five Lakhs]. There is obvious fallacy in understanding the first respondent's case. Further, the petitioner is not able to demonstrate that the valuation of the subject properties at Rs.18,00,000/- [Eighteen Lakhs] is erroneous and unacceptable and in these circumstances this Court must opine that the civil Court's order in this regard does not call for any interference.
5. However, as canvassed by Sri. Chetan Munnoli the question of valuation of the subject properties and the subject matter will be relevant for the purposes of payment of court fees under the Court Fees Act. If ultimately the first respondent is not able to demonstrate that she can assert common possession of the suit scheduled properties, there -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:11529 WP No. 100722 of 2018 could be an impact on the Court fee paid which would be dependent on valuation. The civil Court has not examined this aspect while rejecting the petitioner's application in its entirety. Hence, the petition must be favoured in part interfering with the Civil Court's impugned order rejecting the application in its entirety. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part and the Civil Court's impugned order dated 17.01.2018 is modified directing the civil Court to frame additional issues on the valuation of the subject properties/dispute and the court fee payable.
Sd/-
(B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SMM Ct:vh / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3