Karnataka High Court
Smt Dhanalakshmamma vs Sri Venkataswamy on 1 September, 2022
-1-
CRP NO.265 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.265 OF 2021 (IO)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DHANALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED 75 YEARS.
2. SMT. BHAGAVATHI
W/O LATE CHANDRAMOULI
AGED 45 YEARS.
3. SMT. LAVANYA
D/O LATE CHANDRAMOULI
AGED 25 YEARS.
4. SMT. ASHWINI
D/O LATE CHANDRAMOULI
AGED 20 YEARS.
5. SRI. SUSHEN KUMAR
S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR
AGED 26 YEARS.
Digitally signed by
6. SRI. SULAKSHAN KUMAR
ARUN KUMAR M S S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR
Location: High Court
of Karnataka AGED 24 YEARS.
7. SRI. GIRISH N.D
S/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED 47 YEARS.
8. SMT. KALAVATHI
D/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED 47 YEARS.
-2-
CRP NO.265 OF 2021
9. SMT. SUSHEELA
D/O LATE DASAPPA
AGED 39 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.80, KOTUR,
MUTHASANDRA POST
VIA VARTHUR,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 087.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BINU M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. VENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE DODDA THAYAPPA @ MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
2. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE DODDA THAYAPPA @ MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
3. SMT. SALAMMA
W/O LATE DODDA ANNAYYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
4. SMT. LAKSHMANA
S/O LATE DODDA ANNAYYA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
5. SMT. AKLAMMA
D/O LATE DODDA ANNAYYA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
6. SRI. CHIKKA ANNAYYA
S/O LATE DODDA THAYAPPA @ MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
7. SMT. RUKMANI
D/O LATE DHORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
8. SMT. RADHAMMA
D/O LATE DHORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
-3-
CRP NO.265 OF 2021
9. SRI. NAGABHUSHAN
S/O LATE DHORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
10. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE DHORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
11. SRI. MURALI
S/O LATE DHORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
12. SMT. MANJULA
S/O LATE DHORESWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
13. SRI. MUNIRAJU
D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
14. SMT. SARASWATHI
D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
15. SMT. BHAGYA
S/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
16. SMT. MUNILAKSHMI
D/O LATE CHIKKATHAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
17. SRI. VENKATSWAMY
S/O LATE VADDARA MUNIDASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.
18. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O VENKATSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 18 ARE
R/AT NYANAPPANA HALLI VILLAGE,
BEGURU HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
-4-
CRP NO.265 OF 2021
19. SRI. H.R. RAVICHANDRA
S/O LATE RAJASHEKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.551, 16TH 'A' MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
20. SRI. G. PRASAD REDDY
S/O G. SRINIVAS REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
21. SRI. P. VISHWAS
S/O G. PRASAD REDDY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
22. SMT. KASTHURI
W/O DR. KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
R/AT NO.748, 18TH MAIN,
6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 095.
23. SRI. KIRAN K.
S/O LATE G. KRISHNA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO. 551, 16TH 'A' MAIN,
3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
ALSO AT:
NO.9/2-2, 1ST FLOOR,
PURSHOTHAM LAYOUT,
SBI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
BEHIND INDIA GARAGE,
ST. MARKS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
24. HIRANANDANI TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.
OLYMPIA,
HIRANANDANI BUSINESS PARK,
POWAI, MUMBAI - 400 076.
REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SURENDRA HIRANANDANI.
ALSO AT:
NO. 757/6, 100 FT ROAD,
-5-
CRP NO.265 OF 2021
HAL 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 38.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BADRI VISHAL AND SRI. VARUN JOSHI, ADVOCATE
FOR RESONDENT NO.24;
NOTICE TO R1 TO R18, R20, R21 & R23 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 21.04.2022;
NOTICE TO R19 AND R22 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
DATED 18.08.2022)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
18TH AUGUST, 2021 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.436 OF 2014
ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE IA.7
FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(B) OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Revision Petition is filed by plaintiffs in Original Suit No.436 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court'), challenging the order dated 18th August, 2021, whereby the application filed by the defendant No.24 under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code came to be allowed.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this revision petition are that, plaintiffs have filed suit seeking relief of -6- CRP NO.265 OF 2021 partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.24 filed application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure stating that the said suit is undervalued and accordingly, sought for rejection of plaint. The said application was contested by plaintiffs by filing objections. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by order dated 18th August, 2021, allowed the application IA.VII filed by the defendant No.24 under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have presented this revision petition.
3. I have heard Sri. Binu M., learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Badri Vishal and Sri. Varun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent No.24.
4. Sri. Binu M., learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff/petitioners herein are not in possession of the suit schedule property is incorrect, as the plaintiff is jointly enjoying the possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, he -7- CRP NO.265 OF 2021 contended that the finding recorded by trial Court is required to be interfered with in this petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Badri Vishal and Sri. Varun Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent No.24, drew the attention of the Court to Paragraphs 29 and 30 of plaint and submitted that since the plaint averments itself would indicate that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property, valuation has to be made under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the present revision petition.
6. In the backdrop of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the plaint, which read as under:
"29. Presently Defendants 19 & 24 seem to have entered into a joint agreement to develop the suit land but no development has started subsequent to the development agreement as the plaintiffs and Defendants 1 to 18 have not given possession of the suit schedule land and any of Defendants 19 to 24.
30. It is submitted that the possibility of D19 and D24 indulging in entering into agreement as to the suit -8- CRP NO.265 OF 2021 schedule lands with would-be purchasers of the flats is a reality as the construction of the flats undertaken by D19 & D14 in the vicinity of the suit schedule lands is on- going and construction of the flats is not over."
7. On careful examination of the averments made in the plaint, the same would indicate that plaintiffs have themselves stated that defendants 19 and 24 have entered into a Joint Agreement to develop the suit schedule property and also constructions are being put up in the suit schedule property. It is also stated at paragraph 30 of the plaint that the construction of flats undertaken by defendants 19 and 24 are going on and completion is yet to be made. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that as the construction itself is going on in the suit schedule property, the finding recorded by the trial Court with a direction to the plaintiff to pay the adequate Court fee in terms of the Section 35(1) of the Act, is just and proper and does not call for interference in this Revision Petition. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ARK