Karnataka High Court
Peeru S/O Late Sakru And Anr vs Siddappa S/O Kenchappa Cheela And Ors on 20 September, 2023
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515
CRP No. 200075 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
®
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 200075 OF 2023 (RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PEERU, S/O LATE SAKRU
AGE 55 YEARS,
OCC:AGRI R/O YEDRAMI
TALUKYEDRAMI,.
DISTRICT-KALABURAGI-585325.
2. RAMESH, S/O LATE SAKRU
AGE 47 YEARS,
OCC:AGRI,
R/O YEDRAMI,
TALUKYEDRAMI DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585 325.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.B.BHIMASHANKAR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by SACHIN
Location:
HIGH COURT 1. SIDDAPPA,
OF
KARNATAKA S/O KENCHAPPA CHEELA,
AGE 40 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAMI VILLAGE,
TALUKYEDRAMI
DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585325.
2. KEERU,
S/O LATE SAKRU AGE:50 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULATURE
R/O YEDRAMI,TALUKYEDRAMI
DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585 325.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515
CRP No. 200075 of 2023
3. SOMANATH, S/O BHIMALU
AGE:72 YEARS,OCC:AGRI
R/O YEDRAMITALUK:YEDRAMI
DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585 325.
4. SMT.RATHNABAI
W/O LATE KAMALAKAR PAWAR
AGE:63 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAMI, TALUKYEDRAMI
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585 325.
5. ANAND,
S/O LATE KAMALAKAR PAWAR,
AGE:36 YEARSOCC:AGRICULTUE
R/O YEDRAMI, TALUKYEDRAMI
DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585 325.
6. PRAHLAD, S/O LATE KAMALAKAR PAWAR,
AGE:27 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAMI,TALUKYEDRAMI
DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585 325.
7. SMT.MANJULABAI,
D/O LATE KAMALAKAR PAWAR
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE
R/O YEDRAMI
TALUKYEDRAMI, DISTRICT:KALABURAGI-585325
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI.GANESH.S.KALBURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
R-2 TO R-7 ARE SERVED)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.12.2022
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
JEWARGI IN O.S.No.78/2018 RETURN THE PLAINT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515
CRP No. 200075 of 2023
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 10.08.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to O.S.No.78/2018 have preferred this revision petition challenging the decision of the Trial Court on Additional Issue No.2, by which the Trial Court has held that the valuation of the suit property made by the plaintiff was in accordance with law and it had the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Court below, for the sake of convenience.
3. Respondent No.1--plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a declaration that he was the absolute owner and was in possession of the agricultural property bearing -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 Sy.No.269/2 measuring 7 acres 24 guntas situated at Yedrami village, Jeevargi Taluk, Kalaburagi District.
4. The plaintiff set out the manner in which he valued the suit, as under:
" VALUATION SLIP The suit of plaintiff is valued on the basis of land revenue. The land revenue of suit property is at Rs.7.06. Twelve and half times of land revenue will be less than Rs.1,000/- and the same is valued as per Section 24(b) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and a court fee of Rs.25/- is paid on the relief of declaration of ownership in respect of the suit property to the extent of 01 acre 04 guntas. The relief of decree of possession to the extent of 01 acre 04 guntas of suit property is also valued on the basis of land revenue which is at Rs.7.06 as per Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act and court fee of Rs.25/- is paid. The suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is valued at Rs.6,00,000/- as per Section 50 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act which is present market value."-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
5. As could be seen from the above, the plaintiff valued the suit as per Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'the 1958 Act') by applying the deeming provision of Section 7(2) of the 1958 Act. He stated that since the land revenue was Rs.7.06, for the purpose of computing the court fee, he was valuing the land at twelve-and-half timesof Rs.7.06, which would be asum less than Rs.1,000/-, and he was valuing the suit as provided under Section 24(b) of the 1958 Act and paid a court fee of Rs.25/-.
6. The plaintiff also valued the prayer for recovery of possession on the same premise. However, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.6,00,000/- as provided under Section 50 of the 1958 Act.
7. Defendant No.1 objected to this valuation made by the plaintiff for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. He stated that as per the sale deed (Ex.P.62), -6- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 under which the plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land, the valuation of the land was treated at Rs.1,58,000/- per acre, and thus, the value of the land, even according to him, was less than Rs.5,00,000/-, and consequently, the valuation made by the plaintiff at Rs.6,00,000/- was incorrect and the Court, therefore, did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction. In other words, it was the case of the defendant No.1 that an attempt was being made to over-value the land at Rs.6,00,000/- only to bring the suit within the purview of the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed for the Court of Senior Civil Judge.
8. The Trial Court, on consideration of the pleadings, framed several issues and also proceeded to frame additional issues on 16.12.2019 regarding the valuation of the suit property (Additional Issue No.2).
9. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 15.12.2022, has held that the suit was valued properly.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
10. In order to come to this conclusion, it took note of the fact that PW-1 has deposed that he has filed the suit only in respect of 01 acre 04 guntas and as per his valuation, he had purchased the land for Rs.5,00,000/- per acre. The Trial Court took the view that the plaintiff had sought two independent reliefs of declaration and possession, and for the purpose of jurisdiction, as per the provisions of Section 50 of the 1958 Act, the real market value of the land was the determinative factor and not the deemed value. The Trial Court, therefore, accordingly held that the suit had been properly valued and the said Court had pecuniary jurisdiction.
11. Sri.B.Bhimashankar, learned counsel for the petitioners--defendant Nos.1 & 3, contended that the plaintiff, no doubt, is the dominant litus and he is entitled to determine the value of the subject matter of the suit. But, at the same time, the plaintiff cannot over-value the suit, in order to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction limits of the Court of Senior Civil Judge. He -8- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 submitted that if such an approach is permitted, it would amount to a plaintiff choosing the Court of his option and also has the effect of prejudicing a defendant, who would be forced to approach a higher forum situated at a place far away from the suit property.
12. He stated that in the instant case, since in the sale deed, under which the plaintiff purchased the property on 15.02.2017, he had himself declared the value of the land as Rs.1,58,000/- per acre and since the suit was only in respect of 01 acre 04 guntas, it was obvious that the valuation of Rs.6,00,000/- was deliberately made in order to bring the suit within the purview of the Court of Senior Civil Judge.
13. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-- plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the sale consideration mentioned or the valuation stated in the plaint could not be the criteria for determining the real value of the land. He contended that the sums disclosed in the sale deed are for the purpose of determination of -9- NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 the stamp duty and are not reflective of the actual market value of the land and if the plaintiff had chosen to state the actual market value of the land for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the same cannot be objected by the defendants.
14. In light of the arguments advanced, the only question that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is:
" Whether the plaintiff has the right to value the suit in the manner that he deems fit, and whether the defendant has the right to object to the valuation made by the plaintiff? "
15. It is not in dispute that the suit property measuring 07 acres 24 guntas was purchased by the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 15.02.2017 and the sale deed did state that the plaintiff had paid the sale consideration of Rs.12,01,000/- for 07 acres 24 guntas.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
16. The extent of the suit property was 01 acre 24 guntas and therefore, according to the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, value of the land would be roughly about a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- per acre. The suit was instituted on 30.11.2018 i.e., about one-and-half years after the sale deed dated 15.02.2017 had been executed, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 & 3, the value would not have increased to Rs.6,00,000/-.
17. Before considering the contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and also the Karnataka Civil Courts Act.
18. Prior to the enactment of the Act of 1958, the manner of computing the Court fee and the valuation of the suit was governed by two Acts viz., The Court Fees Act, 1870 (Central Act No.VII of 1870) and the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 (Central Act No.VII of 1887) in their application to
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 Belgaum area and the Coorg District and in respect of the Mysore Region, the Mysore Court Fees Act, 1900 (Mysore Act No.III of 1900) and Sections 11 and 17-A of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1883 (Mysore Act No.I of 1883), as well as the Mysore Suits Valuation Act, 1951 (Mysore Act No.XXXIX of 1951).
19. Thus, there were two enactments governing the field of payment of court fees and the manner in which the suit was to be valued.
20. Section 3 of the Mysore suits Valuation Act, 1951 empowered the State Government to make Rules for determining the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of the suits mentioned in the Mysore Court Fees Act, 1900 and the Rules would determine the value of any class of land or of any interest in the land in the whole or any part of a local area and could prescribe different values for different places within the same local area.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
21. Section 11 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1883 stated that when the subject matter of any suit is a land, a house or a garden, its value shall, for the purposes of jurisdiction under the Civil Courts Act, would be fixed in the manner provided by Clause (v) of Section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.
22. Section 7 clause (v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 stipulated the computation of fees payable in respect of the suit for the possession of lands, houses or gardens, according to the value of the subject matter was deemed to be, on the revenue that had been settled and it would be ten times the revenue payable in respect of the lands for which the revenue was permanently settled; and five times the revenue in cases where the land for which the revenue was not permanently settled. In respect of the lands for which no revenue was payable or was exempted, the land was to be valued at fifteen times the net profits that would arise from such land; and in cases where the land formed part of an estate paying revenue to
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 Government, but was not a definite share of such estate and was not separately assessed as above, the value of the land would be the market value of the land.
23. These two Acts i.e., Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1883 and the Mysore Suits Valuation Act, 1951 along with the Central Acts viz., the Court Fees Act, 1870, the Suit Valuation Act were repealed by Section 59 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and both in respect of computing the court fees, and for determination of the valuation of the suits, a single Act was enacted.
24. Chapter II of the 1958 Act enumerates the provisions relating to the liability to pay the Court Fees, while Chapter III enumerates the provisions relating to the determination of fee and Chapter IV prescribes the manner in which the computation of fee has to be made for different suits.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
25. Chapter V of the 1958 Act provides for the valuation of suits and this Chapter contains two provisions, i.e., Section 50 and Section 51.
26. Before considering the provisions of Chapter V, it would also be necessary to advert to Section 10 of the 1958 Act, which states that in every suit in which the fee payable under the 1958 Act on the plaint is determined on the market value of the subject matter of the suit, the plaintiff is required to mandatorily file with the plaint a statement in the prescribed form, narrating the particulars of the subject matter of the suit and his valuation of the suit.
27. Thus, a statement of the plaintiff is to be necessarily made in respect of the particulars of the subject matter of the suit and the valuation made by the plaintiff, whenever the court fee in respect of the suit was dependent on the market value of the subject matter of the suit.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
28. Section 7(1) of the 1958 Act declares that when the fee payable under the Act depends on the the market value of any property, such value would have to be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
29. However, sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the 1958 Act creates a deemed market value in respect of the four classes of lands mentioned therein. Thus, in respect of the four categories of lands mentioned in Section 7(2) of the 1958 Act, irrespective of the market value of the land, the provision of Section 7(2) creates a deemed market value. However, it is to be noticed here that this deemed market value created under the statute is only in respect of computation of court fee and is not relatable to the valuation of the suit.
30. Section 50 of the 1958 Act, which is found in Chapter V, which relates to the valuation of the suit, as it originally stood in the year 1958, did not contain a proviso. The said Section reads as under:
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 " 50. Suits not otherwise provided for.- (1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same."
31. Sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the 1958 Act stipulated that in respect of a suit, whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Courts, a specific provision was not made under the 1958 Act or any other law, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction and the value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under the 1958 Act was to be the same. In other words, the value that was to be taken for the purpose of computing the court fee payable was automatically the value which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts.
32. Thus, originally, the manner in which a suit was valued for the purpose of paying court fee, was the value
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction also. By virtue of Section 7(2) of the 1958 Act, which created a deemed market value of a land, irrespective of its actual market value, the deemed market value, therefore, became the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction also. Realising that this created complications, a proviso was inserted to Section 50 of the 1958 Act, which reads as follows:
"Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 7, the value of land specified in clauses (a), (b) or (c) of the said sub-
section shall, for purposes of determining the jurisdiction of courts, be the market value of such land."
33. In this regard, it would be necessary to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons in respect of this particular proviso, which reads as follows:
" Clause 4.--According to sub-section (1) of section 50, in a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, a specific provision
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 is not otherwise made in the Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under the Act shall be the same. In the case of agricultural land which is not a garden land, under section 7, the market value for the purpose of court fee will be a multiple of the land revenue payable for that land. This multiple is very much less than the actual market value of the land. Consequently, suits in respect of very valuable lands will have to be instituted in lower courts. It is considered that for the purpose of jurisdiction the actual market value of such lands should be taken into consideration and not the market value as determined for purposes of payment ofcourt fees. This will enable parties to get the dispute adjudicated by a senior judicial officer."
34. As could be seen from the Statement of Objects, the Legislature was conscious of the fact that by virtue of Section 7(2), the market value of land was to be a deemed market value, which was inevitably always less
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 than the actual market value of the land and this in turn resulted in the suits relating to very valuable lands being instituted in Courts, which had a lower pecuniary jurisdiction.
35. The Legislature, therefore, decided to insert the proviso, by which, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the deemed market value determined for the purposes of payment of court fee would not be the value of the subject matter in the suit.
36. The objective of this proviso was to ensure that the parties would get the dispute adjudicated before the appropriate Court and not to force the parties to institute a suit before a Court which possessed a lesser pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus, for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, the actual market value of the lands would be the factor and not the deemed market value.
37. The provisions of the 1958 Act do not prescribe the manner in which the market value is to be determined.
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 Section 10 of the 1958 Act, as stated above, gives the plaintiff the liberty to value the subject matter of his suit and therefore, it would be open for the plaintiff to declare the market value of the suit property as he deems fit.
38. Section 11 of the 1958 Act also stipulates that the Court, before registering the plaint, has to verify that proper fee is payable on the basis of the materials and allegations contained in the plaint. The said Section also provides for a defendant to plead that the subject matter of the suit had not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient and if such objection is raised, such pleas are required to be heard and decided before the evidence is recorded.
39. The Section further states that if the Court were to decide that the subject matter of the suit had not been properly valued, or that the court fee paid was insufficient, it would direct a date to be fixed, by which date, the plaint would be amended in accordance with the Court's decision and deficit court fee paid. The Section also provides that if
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 the plaint is not amended or if the deficit court fee is not paid, the plaint would be liable for rejection.
40. Thus, the defendant is also given a right to object to the valuation made and also plead that the court fee paid was not sufficient.
41. It has to be stated here that if a plaintiff undervalues the land, his liability to pay the court fee would stand reduced, and, in such an event, the defendant can object to the valuation on the ground that an attempt was being made to pay a lesser court fee than what was expected in law. The purpose of conferring a right on the defendant to object to the valuation is only to ensure that a plaintiff does not get away by paying a lesser court fee than what is required in law.
42. In the normal course, if the plaintiff were to value his suit at a higher value, he would actually be liable to pay higher court fee and therefore, the only concern of the Legislature was that the suit property is not undervalued
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 so as to enable the payment of a lesser court fee by the plaintiff. In other words, the valuation set out by the plaintiff for the purposes of computing the court fee payable, would not be the consideration for the purposes of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction and it would only be the actual market value of the property which would be relevant for the purposes of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. Therefore, the argument that the defendant can raise an objection that the suit was deliberately undervalued to bring it within the jurisdiction of court lower than its jurisdiction, cannot be accepted.
43. It has to be stated here that in cases where the court fee is to be paid on the deemed market value, the question of the plaintiff paying a lesser court fee would not arise, since the actual market value is not the consideration or the factor for payment of court fee. In respect of a suit for which there is no provision for construing a deemed market value, obviously, the court fee becomes payable on the actual market value and not
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 on the deemed market value, such as a suit relating to an immoveable property other than the four categories specified in Section 7(2) of the 1958 Act.
44. It is, therefore, clear that there can be different valuations stated by the plaintiff for the purpose of computing court fee payable and for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. It is for this specific reason, that a proviso to Section 50 was inserted in the year 1964 declaring that for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts, the actual market value would have to be considered and not the deemed market value that was to be taken into consideration.
45. In this view of the matter, it was open for the plaintiff to set a value to the subject matter of his property in the manner that he thought fit. The defendant can, no doubt, object to this valuation, but he cannot contend that the value set forth in a sale deed should only be the criteria for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023
46. It is not uncommon in our country that the sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds are not a true reflection of the market value and the sale considerations are deliberately understated so as to save on stamp duty. Therefore, the sale consideration set forth in the sale deed would not be the ideal factor to be considered for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
47. If, in a given case such as this, the plaintiff has declared that the market value of the suit property was Rs.6,00,000/-, the same will have to be accepted unless there is relevant evidence to indicate that the market value is not as stated by the plaintiff.
48. In this case, the only contention put forth by the defendants regarding valuation was the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed of the year 2017.
49. As already stated above, the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed would not be a yardstick to determine the market value of the land. Since, there is
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 absolutely no evidence or material produced by the defendant to indicate that the market value of the plaintiff's land was less than Rs.6,00,000/-, the entire objection raised by the defendants cannot be accepted.
50. One other factor which would have to be kept in mind in the matter is the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Courts Act. The said Act prescribes that there would be a three-tier system of Courts, namely the District Courts, Senior Civil Judge Courts and Civil Judge Courts. The Court of Senior Civil Judge is conferred jurisdiction over all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature, while the Civil Judge is conferred with jurisdiction over all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature in which the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit is less than Rupees Five Lakhs only. It is to be noticed here that the Civil Courts Act does not use the phrase "market value"
and simply uses the word "value of the subject matter of the suit". Though these two terms "market value" and "value" essentially mean the same and can be used
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 interchangeably, the fact remains that the plaintiff can institute the suit based on his valuation of the subject matter of the suit.
51. As stated above, in cases where there is no deemed market value to a property, a plaintiff by overvaluing the suit property suffers the liability to a higher court fee and would therefore not choose to file the suit by overvaluing the suit property. This problem of overvaluation of a suit would, no doubt, arises only in cases where the property has a deemed market value under the 1958 Act, which artificially decreases the value of the suit property. But having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is given the right to state his value of the subject matter of the suit under Section 10 read with the proviso to Section 50 of the 1958 Act, the valuation made by him would have to be normally accepted.
52. I am, therefore, of the view that the decision of the Trial Court in accepting the valuation of the suit made by
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:7515 CRP No. 200075 of 2023 the plaintiff at about Rs.6,00,000/- cannot be found fault with.
53. I find no grounds to entertain this Civil Revision Petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RK/-
CT: SN