Smt Muniyamma W/O Munivenkatappa vs Sri Chinnaiah S/O Late Yellappa on 1 April, 2010

[Cites 12, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Muniyamma W/O Munivenkatappa vs Sri Chinnaiah S/O Late Yellappa on 1 April, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 (3) AIR KANT HCR 899, 2010 A I H C 3603, (2010) 5 KANT LJ 395, (2011) 2 ICC 796

Bench: Aravind Kumar

IVAL

' @

4/'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 015* DAY or APRIL, 2010 
BEFORE %  A " A ?
THE HON'BL.E MR. JUSTICE_ARAViN_i5'K'U:§!ivAVFiw    A

CIVIL. REVISIQN PET|T1QN1«NO'.3:6 A

BETWEEN :

SMT.MUNlYAMMA 
w/0 MUNEVENKATAPPA .
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, -  , ;  Y 
R/A RAMAGONDANAHALL1V?LLAGE,_.~._  
VARTHUR HOBLI, V    4
BANGALORE'SGUTH;TALU_K, . 

REP BY Hrs  _   _  * 
GENERAL F-'OWEFT OF..A.3_'TORi'alE'.f HOLDER
SR|.Y.VS'UR:ESH =    '
AeEDE,A8"ou'Ta4.YE,ARs7' '

...PET1TiONER

(E;/E sn; s.p;shaY.ka.-Ad\,. for
'Sri; S.R._'Hs§gde«~Ej|'ud%amane, Adv., )

I-
U

'-«--."SE.YI;v.cH-;zs:NA1AH" """ 
' » , 3/_o LATE Y-YELLAP PA
* _ " 'AGE_£) ABQUT 89 YEARS

"SR|_'vENkATAswAMY

A  S|l§!{3'E_D~ECEASED BY L.R.s

  

Sm': PAPAMMA

A s  AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

   

'Kw/0 LATE VENKATASWAMY
°SMT. MANJULA

D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS



2c.

2d.

SMT. SUJATHA
D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

SRL MANJUNATH

S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
SRI. MUNIRAJ

S/O CHINNAIAH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
RAMAGDONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI

BANGALORE ---- 560066.

4-.

sRI. V. IYER   r

s/o K.R.S.IYER  '
AeEDAI3ouTI70..YEA;R  _  - 
R/NO.213?_;16?5'BMA--IN =i  * _ 
H.A.L. '     .
BANGAL.OR_E"--_; 560038.13  '  . 7'

sRI. BYAS U. NAIqI'BIsAN'*- '
s/To UNN|KHv!'SH§\£'AN i'~J.AMB|S.AI_\'~
AGED A4BOLJT'37;TYE>'\VRS.__ " _

R/A 100.2995; 1.62""-'A MA|_N"« 

H.A.L. 2'3? STAGE ' '
INDIRANAGIAR, 

0, .;I3ANc3ALoRE 7 38. 

, M/S. VS!GMA BUILDCON PVT LTD
" = N01 07,'DIAMoND DISTRICT
 KODiH.ALL\QAIRPORT ROAD
-- A "--.BANGA"LOF:E -- 560008.
 REP BY' ITS DIRECTOR
'MR; MARKIRAT SINGH BEDI.

.....RESPONDENTS

" (B3II'"6ri. Srinivasa. N., Adv., for ' M/s. A.K.S. Law Associates, Advs., for R6) it-Ir-Ir'k* This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 03.02.2010, passed on Addl. issue No.1 in O.S. No.659/2001, on the file of the Principal ll Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, directing the plaintiff therein to take back the plaint and present it beforeithe Jurisdictional Court as the suit filed by the plaintiff."'against defendants therein for the relief of declaration, poss'e's«si,o.nj: andr consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the"su_i't "

schedule property is not properly valued and the--.C_'ourt'--.hasA not --. pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit: , This petition coming on for 'thisl'd.ay-.,.,,tlte"

made the following: ' - " ' e I i '' onoéamc This is a plaintiff's 'revi%sior--i_V questioningpthe correctness of the order passed bythe Prin.cip_a.l Bangaiore Rural District, aangagre dated "o3g.c2.2aé1cs«r:h O.S.No.659/2001, whereunder '~vvhirle:'v'ansyveri'ng_:"'Add'itionai issue No.1, the Court below has that .it4V'do'es:'.~'i'not have pecuniary jurisdiction to .--vr.entertaii:n suita"nd...consequent|y ordered the plaintiff to take the pl4aint«a:nd_ present it before jurisdictional Court. in brief are as foilows:

Tneparties are referred to as per the ranks before the 'C'ourt"b_elow. ck//' The plaintiff instituted a suit for declarationy and consequential relief and also for delivery of possessirqnV..o«f_s--uit' schedule property and consequential relief iniunction restraining the 5"' defendant,' lf_rneh.,s supporters, assigns, executors and itmfm the nature of the suit schedule arno

3. lt was contended piaintifftthat she is the absolute owner of the suit ng acquired the same under the3reaipsteredffsalefiideed:vf'date'dV:0é.07.1947 and it is her selr-acqutrod:t'ptotpé:-ty_«-It;-itmageailfsocontended that the first defendatitt had'executed'«..a"-registered deed of settlement in respect of suit propertyttfasyperffsettlement deed dated 02.01.1970 V and pet the said "s.e:ttleme'nt,.the plaintiff was allotted 5 guntas of accoiding to the plaintiff is the subject matter of the suit 'a.i_td the plaint as suit schedule property. She V V0 _ also "clairnedvto be in possession of suit schedule property and ointiatccouyritffof certain persons including the 4m defendant having oaattienﬁpted to interfere with her possession, she filed the present % Suit. ¢k/"/

4. On service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the piaint averrne.n't«s;"--,A specific piea was taken that suit was under

market vaiue of the suit scheduie property' if pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court dismissal of the same. On the the bye' the piaintiffs and defendants", issuesVxw_ere*~fr_arned on 15.09.2009. An additional issue came'a'to__be' which reads as under: 'C Q C

7.."i.ftihet'net.'Vtiive defendants prove that this Court i..{¥_ha§_Jno1'pecuniaryiiijvurisdiction to entertain the ' _ Whatiordevr?

was ailvsoiirioted by the Court below white framing 1ti"'!e:V a-ddiitiottavf issue that said issue wili be held as a praitmiriaiy L issue-«as i_t'pe,3rit~aAiins to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. During tit'; inteiregnum period of framing of issues on *.?.02.2009 and .._A02_.f'2.--é009, according to the defendant, the piaintiff sought for arriiendment of the piaint by way of deciaration by defendant % No.6 that the sale deed is null and void. The said amendment is said to have been allowed by the Court below and valuation has been filed according to the defendant * of these facts, the defendant contends that 'they to Ru file the application uiider Sections 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, d'i\§mii_ss it had " V C' no pecuniary jurisdiction,' which:u:'app'iioation"' to be numbered as l.A.No.25. ;T"lie_'~Co.u§§t:ivoelow:i'.'oriconsidering the arguments advanced by thieiiilearnedjyad§,rVocatsisV'Vappearing for the parties by that suit schedule property ivaIaii.e'dv'and"'Cio'u§rt did not have pecuniary jurisdictionfgo' consequently by answering additional lssu'--e.No,f -in'~t_he..«"~affirmative directed the plaintiff to " 'take plaint '"a'nd------preserit it before the jurisdictional Court. 0 order, which is now Questioned by the _p|aintiff--«in this-riévision petition.

This matter was posted on 25.03.2010 and after 0' ..,_"V'argu%ing the matter for considerable time and while concluding 53/ the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.R.Hegde Hudlamane sought for further time to produce or furnish certain authoritiesin support of his submissions. Accordingly, adjourned to today. Sri.S.P.Shankar,.learned.'_4'Sevn'io--r. '4.1lldvocat'e if if appearing on behalf of the petitioner;"woLiid"at concede that it would not be--..:Vgjp'roperi"'to_ procee'd;"'vvi~ti1j the"

arguments when it was being concl*ud'ed"e-Xoept with the ieave of the Court and accordingly of this Court to address the argLz--rnents that arguments advanced duestions of law. in view of the said:vlrequest;th:i:si.3 Co'u'rtV"~pernii'tted§ Sr:'.S.P.Shankar, learned Senior Advocate toVadd.re»s.s'farguments. Sri.S.P_:lShani<ar, would contend that Court fee payaple of this nature would be with reference to sale schedule property and elaborating his V . subm'issiolns'von this, he would contend that suit schedule measures only 04 guntas and thus the valuation j;_.a:cl.opted by the plaintiff as per Section 24-A of Karnataka Court C Fees and Suit Valuation Act cannot be found fault with. He would also submit that question of considering the issue of___Court fee is controiied by Section H of Karnataka Court Fee"atid_Suit Vaiuation Act, 1956, wherein it is held under sectionigi1{m7ii%;:~,i' before recording of the evidence, the_,E»ss.i_ie reg'a'rd'ing. fee"

has to be determined and once the "i*eco'_rdihg of commenced, the Court shouid.n"oIV_% en1ba,r_ki u;oo:n"«:..ho'iding an'-if enquiry with regard to Coutft fee,.B\aii.abie--».and.nosuchiiissue can be determined. He wouid sought for in the piaint is with broperty oniy and it cannot be Vre'soectV_-offfffentire sale deed and accordingly"s~uiotnit.s::ti'1at:"tt3§:Vforderofj Court beiow suffers from jurisdictionai to be revised by this Court in exercise of its» powers unsdetffwsection 115 and accordingiy prays ,.,that'-ttie srevisigon oHe't'it*i*o'n be allowed by setting aside the order passed below. The learned Senior Advocate has reiiedV%upo.n 'foiiowi ng judgements:

" i. AIR. 1971 so 87 The State of UP. vs. Fiamkrishan Burman (dead) by his legal representatives and others

ii) NR 2007 AP 57 Yanala Malleshwari vs. Ananthula Sayammath

iii) All'? 1987 SC 2085 .9 Smt. Tara Devi vs. Sn'. Thakur Radha--«..'_Krisrtna _ Maharaj ' " -- '

iv) 1984 KLJ 97 Umarabba vs. Pathunni and '1 'A l'

9. Per contra, SriSri_n.ivas".l\i'.',"

appearing on behalf of would submit that suit was filed.V:"in_ and at the first instance, the defendant h:a'd'*raised--Vtli;.e" i'ss_uve::".reg;jarding pecuniary jurisdiction raising such a plea in the etﬁtestte[l%t§te;9ihad been framed by the Court below' deed dated 24.12.1999 is to be held as nuili__4andotriotherwise and since the plaintiff on amen}drne~nt beiingeilowed did not file a revised valuation memo »had--»__rtecessitat.ed the defendant in filing the application reqxuetstivvngR."the'A't:Court to reject the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdictic.n.'i ft'-le would submit that as per the recital in the sale ..jf't»deeid,' the sale co..sideration shown in the sale deed is at l'7t'§s.»'1'EA3,54,f50/-- and the plaintiff has sought for declaration to 'declare the said sale deed as null and void and not binding on $,X the plaintiff and when such being the position, the plea of the plaintiff that Court fee is to be determined in respect _o,t'_ca:_'sa|e deed ----- qua suit schedule property cannot be accepted' _ sale deed cannot be declared as nullyand void"in..Tpiece meal. 2 Accordingly, submits that Court beloiiiié ha.ying coynsildereidftbeeeé facts has come to a conclusion *;hat._it does not ha'ye'..a.pecu§niary.:"2 jurisdiction and he seeks for confi_r_tnat:ion_»of theorder passed by the Court below and reject'i-oxnof "ilf1e:;>|*€>V':\il"|'$.i'y(:3ii'.iA:' 'petition. to. In repitgl'Sri.S.Pg.Shankar'.iwo_uld contend that even otherwise byi:yirt.u'e_y.o§":ame'ndvrﬁent_i«to'«:theC Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 196:4, undAéf..~v3.e'cti0ri«..i7';.,the' jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) l=ts.5 Lakhs and as such, the very Court_;beiore tlievsuit was filed would get pecuniary "try the suit and accordingly submits that order of tiie"C._o«urtv be.lovii'y;'ivs"liable to be set aside. ti*ie_ytoly_'owing points arise for my consideration:

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, W EE

i) Whether in a suit for declaration to declare a document/deed/instrument as null and void plaintiff can value the suit restricting the same to the extent of property described in schedule to plaint and court~fee accordingly? ' OF _ _ .

Plaintiff has to pay court fee on the consideration reflected in the document,/deed'/instru'rnerrt which "

include larger extent of propertyrtha'n"ciairined its piaintschedule? if A' 2

ii) Whether the order passed the -Qourt. suffers from anyinfirmity esitheririlor.on.:tacts?

iii) What order?

12; """ order to consider the contentions it would be of necessary to extract the rel'e.,\iantVpr.ov'i~sion'~;ll'which has been relied upon by the trial Q_o*urt._namely hSec--...24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit V'*V\laVlvLlation~Act;"l which reads as under:

s Suits for declaration ---- in a suit for a V bdecfaratéory decree or order, whether with or without ' ~ .at__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 m«/ property or on (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher;

where the prayer is for a declaration' _ and for consequential injunctionend'thej---- '

-relief sought is with reference"-to vafny' immovable prope_rty., tee? " "sh*al'_i~ . be" . computed on one-haltot the" --.='n_arlset""' « value of the property ofrfon (rupees thousand), whichever. is taigher;..".p . A ' ' x x x x x x x x V. in othe'r~V. ,. cases, wh ether the V iiisuvbject matter oiithe suift. is c'apable of valuation or not, "fee shall ;be"*~COF!1'p.Lited on the gjamounft at"t{vhic*h.'Vi»--theV- relief sought is ?rai'uedi~.in€tr1e pl'ai_n't~ 'orcn (rupees one '"'_«._the'u_s'and.)_iwhVic--he--ver_rs higher. ourrng counsel Sri§S.P.Sharrl<ar,-hasgtressed into service Section 11 of the Karnatakai Qourt'--._i:Fe'e and Suit Valuation Act and "

1 1(2).' Vc:eurs'e.,«V'ot arguments, the learned Senior .....A_Vpar=t§:(j't1la.t!.;\/ Snec-1Vi1V(2';"*'and the same is also extracted, which XXXXXXXXX Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of $,/ undervalued. The plaintiff is seeking cancellation sale deed and seeking vacant possession that are required to be valued separately under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation. Since, the property is a converted propeity~*havingj market value the plaintiff is required to vaiué:under«.A Section 24(b) of the Karnataka:;'Court see; 'and: seize?" 'T Valuation Act". S' A' S' C " C

14. Thus, admittediy, the"'deiendant'* fiirstiltnstance it has raised defence with reigatrd tothe jurisdiction of he Court to try the suit. The EssueAc_Vregardin--g.:lj'urj'sdE.ction would have a direct bearirrg tojty the a'nd:"lot*her..:V.issues that may be framed in a__sulitlv\'.aVnd"'3«as Section 11(2) mandates that to avoid any 'further ccns'i'der.attn:n' of the merits of the case so as to _ avotdthe rdeiaxy also to save the public time. Intact, this ivssueVl'vi'a_s'lttte%:Subject matter of consideration by this Court in the case-l'____oft:""f55l'he:;'-"Karnataka Theosophical Federation -----vs- SC 9 Balakrishna ii'.-shrama" reported in im 1999 KAR 2939 wherein W H " is heid to the foitowing effect:

"A perusal of sub--Sections(2) to (6) of Section 11 per se reveals and mandates that all questions C-_F}// Court at which point of time the Court beiow framed the preliminary issue, which reads as under: T T "Whether the defendants prove that this A no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present g ts. it is no doubt true that Sections it(ztttriahdatésthajt before recording of evidence, tlitevissue r'egardinig,C'ojut*t..fee wiii'-L' have to be determined,' HowAevie'r'tv.ttrteg' iss'u'e--..tega§rding the jurisdiction is aiso to be cor.s'idere_dfatv thea'.i:n'i.tiai_stage. However, if the Court does_:no__t_ 'try the suit and proceeds to later on holds it lacks jurifsdiictionriit to put the clock back and thelpteetgougtthgtwuutujgghe, iost. With this object, Section 11(2) has been v.inVt"roduced:.~'i' if it is only the issue regarding . gpaynjent Court fee,.._w.hich does not effect the jurisdiction of the V"--._Cour't,..the_V4sai:d.arg_ument holds good and not otherwise. What is conteirtp|ate*dtjfunder Section11(2) is oniy with reference to the ',C.ourt4"feev'payabie and whether it is properly valued or that the I {C;oAurt"'tTee paid is insufficient. The consequence of such finding .___""."beV';given can also be noticed in the said sub--Section and also a/ Sec. 4(3)(A) to (D). The mandate of that Section cloth the plaintiff with a right to sue that may be allowed by .«'il'ie:'j{.';o~ii4rt trying the suit and only on payment of such rejection of the plaint can be made as.contemp'lated"uIn'dei-Qrderu it 7 Rule 11(c) and not otherwise. Howeiier;

raised with regard to the iurisdi'ctio'n.V_of the .Court V-to"tr:y"'t~i*ie: suit," ' particularly with reference,.--to theypecuniary'jurisdiction: it cannot be held that issue of pecuniary jurisdiction cannottbe Souri: below after commencementdefy eyldence in as much as the jurisdiction*tvoQ,l§,i.'b§ifioundatiiont fo'i"Vtrying the suit and when the very crumbles down on account of plaint avermients,-itgcannot held that such an issue cannot be

-"'~deteriri'ined: after thevv--..commencement of the recording of the i"«evidence;-.:_He'nce,~.l am of the considered opinion that the issue raisedby theisiieairned Senior Counsel with regard to Sec.11(2), Qrthat triai Coun ought not have embarked upon considering the "issu_e"*.:_mf pecuniary jurisdiction after commencement of the ..__"V':'evidence cannot be accepted and accordingly, it is rejected. in CV these circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that underSec.11(2) of the K.C.F. and S.Vf_ﬂict:;.the issue regarding Court fee has to be adjudicate_ri_:"'befovr--e__T:'i.h_e' evidence being recorded cannot be accepted "wh.eothe '--issue" ~ 2 regarding jurisdiction is raised.

17. In the valuation slipdated 131$-T thewi"

plaintiff, suit has been __valued_..u'nde:=_Section:_24A(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and"Suit. for declaration and possession and the ideclaratoriy reiii.e;f._th.at gfﬁought for by the plaintiff is to aaiaiajyinaisueiieeii d'ai¢d24.i2.i989 is null and void. Thenatu'rai~Vcorolplaryi"i.yoLs.ld_' be that plaintiff ought to have paid the Court fee the consideration depicted in the sale de'edt.irrespec_tive ofthe extent of claim made qua property in deed, in as much as thesuit schedule property and it is undivided share comprised in the _ property described in the sale deed dated 24.12.1989. The beloiiv on considering this fact noticed that prayer made in '_'_'i~__th'epiaint is for the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiff as if X' the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by declaring the alt"

sale deed dated 24.12.1989 registered as document l\io."/G98 as null and void. in the instant case, plaintiff has sought for declaration of the safe deed in its entirety and conseqiienit-i.yf'has sought for declaring the said sale deed would respect of the ptaintiffs rights over thesuit "

which is to an extent of 04 guntasfg A1'_'_sa'iVe declared as null and void in a piefrgerneal that to_the e§§t'ewnt of suit V L' schedule property oriiy. The one_cours'e-- leftoipen to the Court adjudicating the said'iss*ue* i,sf'tov deeiviarfe 'either that the safe deed is null and gvvojidas oVth.erwis.e'and not in bits and pieces as"cont:e iii); the p_iainti'ff.w an additionai issue came to be framedon artdon further hearing of the arguments of the c.ounsel'for~--t'he parties, an order came to be passed is found to be in consonance with the pleadfingsv_of'v'thei:;parties. The other aspect, which requires to be vi'-..«.4_"rnoticed"is"with reference to Order 14 Rule 2_of Code of Civil "ri:¥5§:'oce"ci«ure, 1908, which reads as under:

i" .9fﬁer XIV 'R/f 20 Settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues o_f__Iaw or on issues agreed upon *'Jr'Jr'Jr'Jr'Jr'Jr'Jr'Jr

1. Framing of issues -

2. Court to pronounce judgment onnaiii Notwithstanding that a case may be di'spo'sedu.o«t_oi1 issue, the Court shall, subject to the proyisions pronounce judgment on all issues (2) Where issues bot'l1_of arise irithe same suit, and the Court is of or'.~any part thereof may be disposed an=A._issue':of"iayy:.onl.y;it'may try that issue first it that issue r V V (a;gtithlr{¢--V:é arse

(b)barto by any law for the time being ,inmmmm~* iandpferathat ourposeimayv, if it thinks tit, postpone the settlement 'lot the until after that issue has been determined, andimyay _oleavlAsi'.wCith the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue... 1' perusal of Order 14 Rule 2 shows that it is permissible "if »fo.r..t§he Court to try a particular issue as preliminary issue if it is of dg// * fi.itigaii_or:. Ti the opinion that case, or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only and that issue in question relates to jurisdiction of Court or a bar to the suit created by a.n_y'fIt*l.i;, held that nature of lease forms preliminary issueof vljawiin the V' case B.Vishwanatha Shetty --v..*~_v-'ii-WV 'P'.t\1.Pad-ma:VatVhviV,'*:7' ILR C 1992(3) Kar 2424 : 1992(3) i_<t_.i ?iv43€)A,i1"vii.herei'n*'__.it'-is' midiast follows: C . V V «V C V ''18. It is necessary here that ......................... . L ,;_ ; '. . ..f§'. 3 in .'¥'=?Q(i\ordance with the decision ori"tha*t:iissue;:'s.._' it A perusal aioré'.said_preirisioris would go to iitiis-3 "pe'rrnissit>ie""for'§the Court to try a particular asiiaepreliniinary issue if the Court is of the.opinionfAthai'*~.theﬁcase, or any part thereof may be" disposed"-oi'"on an issue of law only and the issue' iaquestion relates to the jurisdiction _uVof.v_tii-eiffotirt or a bar to the suit created by any i'-

"-".___!alw.. ~.

'i9';'v.a "Thus a piece meal trial would lead to protracted J...

- r'-.. 4 -..- 1__....._.| -_.|:.._.|:-...4... u.- :._._..... ...|.-_ {U KJUUH ' ale UUUHU U a.UfUUiUa1B {He Ibblfe WHUH l and pronounce its finding upon all the issues framed. However, that does not deter the Court in trying the M 22 issue regarding jurisdiction since the very foundation of t__he suit depends upon the jurisdiction to try the suit, either ter'ritfo«ria!Vv'or pecuniary and when it is brought to the notice of stage of the suit, if it is to be foundthat 'the'.r:'ah.riot be adjudicated upon for want of either j;urisdA_i_ctivon'and..'also'rV'o'nj:VAtrhe_ ground that decree that may ultimately be" pas~s.edv-,wo.u|'d become' ' if a nullity on the prernisges that Vcconsent does not confer jurisdiction. In these the considered opinion that Court--:be.low the plaint to be returned to to-1.._p'reVsey_nt"._;itbefore the jurisdictional Court. ﬁifiuifarj declaration of particular documeirrt/dieedf reflects consideration and to declarethat"docrumVe_nt'~as"~aV valid document. Plaintiff ought to ~.have_ji}*a!;uedVV.the sVui'tr*-mder Section 24(a) of the K.C.F. and s.v. T_£3II1d:V'§.l,§iy».4'tii'.@5 "necessary Court fee on such consideration as reflected vi_n'th3e*deed or document. The decisions relied upon by learned Senior Advocate would be inapplicable to the facts "=and_c'i"rcumstances for the following reasons: V 23 Regarding ji): 1984 KLJ 97 (Umarabba --vs~ Pathun___ni and others), in the said case, the contention of the revision. _petit.ion_er with regard to the valuation was of two fold, namel_y',fV--.(i)'_yal'i}atiio--rt of the subject matter in regard to the juri.sd_i_ctiori' yaluatiort if if of the subject matter for payment of fe'e._"

considering Section 11(2) of Ka,rgnataka"'QourtV_'F.ees"'ant.i° Suite Valuation Act found on facts thatsssiissiue--re'g.arding'Courtifee could not have been consideredsincethéi»Vey'i.de'nce"ihad already been recorded on all issues._ and provisions of Section 11(2), issue :regarding Court fee cannot be tried as a if l'n"vth--e}instant case, the issue is regardin§vv.jjnes'_ has been considered by the Court be|owV'fan%d~» hsence._Vsai.d' judgement is inapplicable to the

-" -facts ._bf'«:thegAV'prese nt = "-'__l§egg:v'"rdiV_ngV AIR 1987 so 2085 (Smtfiara Devi --vs- _Sri.Th'akur__" Riadha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits if H"tic'--Char:desh'war Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and another). In the 'case, it was held that valuation made by the plaintiff is if lrfaccepted as proper valuation. There is no dispute with regard to Q,/ 24 this proposition. However, when the Court fee is payable on the basis of valuation and if said valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the said proposition inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.- Regarding nu): AIR 2007 Ar? srtigﬁrénaiiaiirinarliesriwaii W/o Y.Yadagiri Fieddy etc.etc..ri'--«v.s-- W/o Late Gopaiah and another _» in the said case,Vthef' praye;rjrwa~sdr..§o~ught to declare two instruments executed andrreeijstered_asA"rfull".laad void. The trial Court held that has "reeiion both instruments. it was held Court that in the facts and circumstances-of the 'sa'lcl caseiithat second document which was _ sough;t"for beingV_i_Cdeclared as null and void was held is a vconsequle-ntial"relief and sale therein was by reason of fraud and iaccerdirr'g4!:§i_~v_.h_eldVthat Court fee paid on the principal document . would beiisutfiicient and payment of Court fee in respect of a °'<":,cone.equie'ntial relief claim would not arise. The principle .i enunciated in the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts and "circumstances of the present case inasmuch as, in the instant M 25 case it is the principal document itself namely sale deed dated 24-124989 which is sought for being declared as null by the plaintiff himself and hence Court fee has to _ said document without splitting, bifurcating or 3"

20. Though learned Senior icouiirtisel app.ear.i,ng revision petitioner has contendedfthat }vur'i.soiis.tio,nV'AﬁLfv"'the Civil"

Judge, (Jr Dn) is now extended upto.'Fis,5,.Q0,0uO/4-an"d the value o_f 5 guntas of land being lessiha~n5ns.si,ioo;ooor--, the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) would hav'-sgjurisdictionto cannot be accepted for the reason: it"has"3'bee'n§jiie'id._ hereinabove that the suit is for declaration __of1 dee"o'..._dated 24-12-1989 whereunder the consideration refle'cte"cl.:inritiheidocument therein is Fis.18,54,100/- _ and as 'such the consideration 'shown in this document which is 'sought declared as null and void exceeds 5,00,000/- jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn) gets V . extinguis-hed.""'Hence, the order of the trial Court ordering for the being returned to be presented before the jurisdictional «C Crourtidoes not suffer from any infirmity and is hereby confirmed. 'CR//' 26

21. Be that as it may, when the issue regarding jurisdiction is raised with reference to Court fee payable and det.ermi«na~tivon thereof wouid touch upon the jurisdiction of Court.A"tt3 would not prevent such Court from examining;iiscrtmniisirigggand adjudicating the same as a prelimiriary?'.A_'is'sueiisince the_i:"~iss~u:e regarding jurisdiction is the foti:vridation"'of in this' context, it would be necessary 'tori-oijgseirve that Orde.r'§14 Rule 2 empowers the Court to Et'ry,_'a pre'ii.minary issue if it relates to jurisd_i.ctiont_ As see.n*ii._frigmthieiicourt trying a suit is empowered toi'Vtry_th_e'issue-first {which relates to the iurisdiction of the Court si'nce'i..:'the"--«gcointinuation of proceedings and adjud_ioa'ii.ng on 'imetits iiiounoi to be without jurisdiction wouid not VoriiyVi'res_ult_lntrepetitive litigation or multiplicity of proceedings, but ituouoeieo the precious time of ail the parties to the its V .V including.V:thaf""of the Court. Hence it has to be held that when an "guise-ue regarding Court fee is raised it requires to be examined as alpireiiminary issue if it would have a direct bearing on the " furisdiction of the Court to try the suit. Q./' 27 ln view of the above discussion, Point No.1 herein is answered in negative holding that the issue regarding jurisdiction with reference to the Court fee can be determined by4ltIr}e.._:Trial Court in exercise of its powers under order 14 multiplicity of proceedings as it would gog,to_the _roo't' oi'_'thé=:m'atte.rj. " "

Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered as4ab_o'vs3. A Point No.2: ln view of the'iVa'eove discuss_ion',"tt]'i~,e...C3oiurt of the considered opinion,__ the orderpassed below does not suffer from any""error'*.eitl%1'er"onj .Iaw_or on facts and hence the following:'* The revision petition is disrnisse4d'rii..as'devoid of merits. The order passed by the ceisiinbeleﬁini o'}s.No.s59/2001 dated 03.02201 04-is ihereb_§i«:.contirmed.A' A ..... .. v No order toggcosts; l 'JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court