Karnataka High Court
Mrs Tasnemunisa W/O Abu Mohammed Hunnal ... vs Shri Danish S/O Dadasab Badami on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
CRP No. 100024 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100024 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MRS. TASNEMUNNISA
W/O. ABU MOHAMMED (HUNNAL UDUPI),
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. CTS 8653A, SHREE NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016,
REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SHRI. KIFAYAT S/O. JAMALSAB SHAIKH,
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. BUSIENSS,
R/O. PLOT NO.78, 5TH STAGE, PRESS COLONY,
HANUMAN NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH ALLANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. DANISH S/O. DADASAB BADAMI,
Digitally signed
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
by VISHAL
NINGAPPA
R/O. 194, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR,
VISHAL PATTIHAL
NINGAPPA Date: BELAGAVI-590010.
PATTIHAL 2023.12.15
10:30:22
+0530
2. MRS. NAZHAT PARVEEN W/O. DADASAB BADAMI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. 194, SECTOR NO.2, SHIVABASAVA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER ON ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO. 3- PRELIMINARY
ISSUE DATED 13.02.2023 IN O.S. NO. 993/2016 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS, BELAGAVI & ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419
CRP No. 100024 of 2023
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present civil revision petition by defendant No.2 assailing the order dated 13.02.2023 passed in O.S.No.993/2016, on the file of the IV-Addl. Civil Judge, Belagavi, whereby, additional issue No.3 was treated as preliminary issue and held that the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. Parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration that the sale deed, dated 06.12.2004, executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, is illegal, invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff, directing defendant No.2 to handover possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and further restrained defendant No.2 from alienating the suit property. The suit was filed before the Civil Judge, -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023 Belagavi and the suit was valued at Rs.4,70,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee under Section 24(a) & 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ("the KCF & SV Act" for short) and the Court fee of Rs.31,425/- was paid.
4. The petitioner - defendant No.2 appeared before the trial court, filed his objections and raised a preliminary objection stating that the suit value of the property at present is more than Rs.5,00,000/- and the plaintiff has not valued the suit property properly and the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings, framed the issues and the additional issues, out of which the Trial Court treated additional issue No.3 as a preliminary issue, which reads as under:
"Whether this Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit?"-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023
6. The trial Court held that the plaintiff has rightly valued the suit for Rs.4,70,000/- and the valuation made by the plaintiff cannot be said to be improper and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the findings recorded by the trial Court on preliminary issue, holding that the Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the present revision petition by defendant No.2.
8. Heard learned counsel Shri Vishwanath Allannavar appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri H.M. Dharigond appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the suit of the plaintiff is for declaration, possession and injunction, the sale deed is of the year 2004 and the valuation of the suit property in the sale deed is Rs.4,70,000/-. However, as per Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, the plaintiff ought to have valued the -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023 suit property as per its actual market value as on the date of the suit. Learned counsel would contend that the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, inspite agreeing that the value of the suit property was more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Learned counsel would contend that the trial Court has misread the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH & ORS1 and has failed to consider that in the said decision, it expressly states that non-executant, not in a possession and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an advalorem Court fee on the market value. Learned counsel would contend that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the valuation made by the plaintiff on the suit property at Rs.4,70,000/- is as per the sale consideration is proper, is unjustifiable and liable to be set aside.
1 (2010) 12 SCC 112 -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would justify the order of the trial Court and would contend that the prayer of possession being a consequential relief, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly valued for Rs.4,70,000/- for the purpose of the jurisdiction and Court fee and the valuation made by the plaintiff cannot be said to be improper as rightly held by the trial Court and would contend that the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference.
11. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that would arise for consideration is as to "whether the suit of the plaintiff is properly valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction?"
12. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The prayer sought in the plaint, which is annexed to the petition, is to decree by declaring that the -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023 sale deed dated 06.12.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff, directing defendant No.2 to handover the possession of the suit property and restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the suit property. The suit was valued under Sections 24(a) & 26(c) of the KCF & SV Act, the valuation made in the plaint is as per the sale deed, dated 06.12.2004. The trial Court on the preliminary issue held that the trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 24 of the KCF & SV Act is the provision applicable to the facts in the present case. Section 24 (a) enumerates as under:
"24. Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under section 25,-
(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 on1 [rupees one thousand] 1, whichever is higher;-8-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023
14. Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, envisages that where a prayer is made for declaration of title and for possession of the property to which declaration relates, fee to be computed on the market value of the suit property. Section 7 of the KCF & SV Act, reads as under:
"7. Determination of market value.- (1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.
(2) The market value of land in suits falling under sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be,--
(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Deputy Commissioner's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled-- twenty-five times the revenue so payable:
(b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023 revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not permanently-twelve and a half times the revenue so payable:
(c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue-fifteen times the net profits if any from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint or thirty times the revenue payable on the same extent of similar land in the neighbourhood, whichever is lower;
(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned or the land is a garden or the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, or is land not falling within the foregoing description--the market value of the land.
Explanation.--The word "estate", as used in this section means any land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which in the absence of such engagement shall have been separately assessed with revenue."
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023
15. Plain reading of Section 7(1) enumerates that the market value of any property shall be determined as on the date of the presentation of the plaint, a conjoint reading of Section 24(a) and Section 7(1) of the KCF & SV Act, enumerates that the prayer for declaration of title and for possession of the property to which declaration relates, the market value of the suit property shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the suit. The plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, as per the valuation in the sale deed. As stated supra, as per Sections 24(a) & 7(1) of the KCF & SV Act, the market value to be determined is as on the date of presentation of the suit. The defendant has placed a letter issued by the Sub-Registrar to contend that the suit property is more than Rs.5,00,000/-. The material on record placed by the defendants establishes that the market value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit is more than Rs.5,00,000/-. In such circumstances, the valuation of the suit property being more than Rs.5,00,000/-, the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit,
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023 even in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUHRID SINGH, stated supra the Apex Court has held that the non-executant, who is not in possession has to pay an advalorem Court fee on the market value. The said decision of the Apex Court was misconstrued by the trial Court to arrive at a conclusion that the trial Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The reasoning and approach of the trial Court in arriving at such a conclusion warrants interference by this Court, since the trial Court has failed to consider that the suit falls under Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act and the actual market value as on the date of the suit as enumerated under Section 7(1) of the KCF & SV Act is to be paid for the purpose of jurisdiction and for the purpose of Court fee. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the trial Court on additional Issue No.3 needs to be set aside and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered holding that the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and Court fee.
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14419 CRP No. 100024 of 2023
16. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The civil revision petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of the trial Court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The trial Court to return the plaint and the respondent is permitted to present the plaint before the appropriate Court having pecuniary jurisdiction in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNP, CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28