Karnataka High Court
Master K.P. Ponnappa And Another vs K.P. Poovaiah And Others on 13 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: ILR2000KAR3382, 2000(6)KARLJ275
Author: Mohamed Anwar
Bench: Mohamed Anwar
ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This is plaintiffs' petition directed against the Trial Court's order dated 27-10-1999 made in O.S. No. 58 of 1994 directing him to file a fresh valuation slip by correctly valuing the relief claimed in the plaint to the extent of their share in the suit schedule Item Nos. 7 to 14 valuing the extent of their and also liability in O.S. No. 139 of 1987 based on the extent of their share, and further directing them to pay the Court fee in proportion to the one which was paid by dependent No. 5 in O.S. No. 139 of 1987.
3. The suit in O.S. No. 58 of 1994 was instituted by the petitioners-plaintiffs against respondents-defendants 1 to 4, for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule immovable properties described at Items 1 to 14 therein. Respondent 5-Vijaya Bank was made defendant 5 in the suit pleading at para 11 of the plaint that the Bank by instituting suit in O.S. No. 139 of 1987 against the parents and uncles of plaintiffs, obtained a money decree towards recovery of the loan that was said to have been borrowed by mortgaging the immovable properties at Items 7 to 14 of the present suit and that the decree obtained therein was a collusive decree and the plaintiffs are not bound by it.
4. The original relief of partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' share and mesne profits were valued and a separate valuation slip was also produced along with the plaint. As regards the valuation made therein in respect of the original relief there was no dispute. Subsequently, during pendency of the suit, plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of plaint to incorporate additional relief of declaration and the same was allowed by the Trial Court. As a result, the following additional relief came to be incorporated in the plaint:
"(a)xxx xxx xxx xxx; (b)xxx xxx xxx xxx; (c)xxx xxx xxx xxx; (d) Declaration that the loans borrowed by the first defendant from the 5th defendant mortgaging the Items 7 to 14 of the plaint schedule properties as well as the consequential decree obtained by the 5th defendant in O.S. No. 139 of 1987 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, are not binding on the plaintiffs and their interest in Items 7 to 14 of the plaint schedule properties".
5. With the addition of this relief of declaration, a separate valuation slip dated 30-7-1999 was filed by the plaintiffs valuing the same of Rs. 1,000 according to Section 24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ("the Act" for short) and a Court fee of Rs. 25 was thus paid thereon. Thereafter, objection was raised by the defendants that the valuation so made by the plaintiffs in respect of said additional relief of declaration was not correct and proper and they were bound to value it to the extent of the share of their liability for the decretal amount under the decree passed in the said O.S. No. 139 of 1987 and that they were liable to pay the ad valorem Court fee on the value thereof. The Trial Court by its impugned order upheld the objection of defendants and called upon the plaintiffs to file a fresh valuation slip in terms of the directions stated above.
6. One significant aspect of the impugned order is that the learned Trial Judge has not held and recorded any finding that for the purpose of valuation of the said relief of declaration clause (d) of Section 24 is not applicable and that any other specific provision of the Act was attracted. The applicability of Section 24(d) of the Act is not also in dispute before me.
7. Section 24 of the Act deals with the levy of Court fee in "Suits for Declaration". It runs.-
"(a) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees (one thousand) whichever is higher;
(b) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on (rupees on thousand) whichever is higher;
(c) xxx xxx xxx xxx;
(d) In other cases, where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on (rupees one thousand whichever is higher".
7-A. Obviously, Section 25 relates to "Adoption suits" and is of no relevance to the question involved herein. Section 24 governs three classes of declaratory relief by its respective clauses (a), (b) and (d), since the clause (c) having been omitted from the Act. First two clauses (a) and (b) thereof respectively pertain to the relief of "declaration and for possession of the property"; or for "declaration and for consequential injunction" with respect to immovable property. Evidently, these provisions do not apply to the instant case since the additional relief of declaration incorporated in the plaint is neither for "possession of the property" or for "the consequential relief of injunction". Sub-clause (d) of Section 24, which is relevant for our purpose, reads:
"24(d) In other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher".
8. Sub-clause (d) of Section 24 is the clause which is relevant for our purpose. This provision makes it manifestly clear that the Court fee payable in respect of the relief of declaration by which neither possession of the property is prayed nor any consequential relief of injunction with respect thereto is sought, it shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or rupees one thousand whichever is higher. Therefore, the additional relief of declaration added in the plaint by amending it squarely falls within the purview of Section 24(d). This relief of declaration is valued in the plaint at rupees one thousand and accordingly, the Court fee thereon was computed and paid as required by Section 24(d) the relief thus valued and Court fee computed thereon is therefore correct and proper. The Court below is clearly in error in holding the same as incorrect and improper and it is order impugned herein is liable to be set aside.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the Court below is set aside. The valuation slop filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs in respect of their additional relief of declaration added in the plaint is held correct and proper.