Karnataka High Court
Smt Nanjamma vs Smt Akkayamma on 12 March, 2008
Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 KARNATAKA 102, 2008 (3) AIR KANT HCR 62, (2008) ILR (KANT) 1420, (2008) 4 KANT LJ 177, (2008) 3 ICC 681
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
" V' V' .. possession and focr
1
:9
E?
1
IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT N
DATED : 1'1-ns me 12"" DAY OF { :': ' ' A' i « k'
' M '
nm HoN*BLE MR. s.r2e.!s I . i' %
me HON'BLE
REGULAR
smt. .A n.I..=::.-Haw.
smt,Akk§yamma; RESPONDENTB.
e ~ H FirstAppeal is filed under Section 96 ocfthe
CPI}. judgment and decree dated 4.2.2008 passed
iu'~::).S.§'io..E':éi7t'§5ifii on the iiie ofthe xvii: City
-I"-i .._,_{;'.3(.'-I-!.!!e.3 . Pa'-..%.-e, die.*:.'-.ie the suit for *pu1fi':'u'ur:fi
-This Regular First Appealbeingheardand reserved is
V' "coming on for pronouncement of oxders on Office Objections
Regarding Court Fee day. BANNURMATH J.. made the
In this appeal, "objection
regarding deficiency on
the morandnm of me appellant took
57% nlnnnrl Inefp
as
E!
5'
5"
5
5
3"
3
'F
3'
I
7
n
3
5.
3
5
5.
3
_ m".-.'.e:' in wpr-...eiat.e tee .._.'al -'.:.'...":t...-'3*..iens, .. i
téipnom the brief facts giving rise to the present
. 'V
4. The appellant/pl'aintifl' has flied the
' ' against the respondents for partition
and separate possession in the suit schedule properties,
on me gotnid met die were self acquired
9-4»-'
-3-
properties of her deceased ihther Shri canvas
contended that said Shri Bachappa
behind the plaintifl' along
brcstiers. 1.. -.=.' mt.-.-..~:.dw that fs:ss'vr.':*:
and inspitc of repeated' ' it
have denied the the uit. It
was also alleged that alienated some
'_--""""'F I" "I'--- """"
properties arid mnnetflen,
fie - ifi the siiit, she
has the purchasers as oo-
" was resisted by the detbndants inter
L' right of the plaint:ifl'fcr partition. It was
almost all of the suit schedule properties
axe sch? ..cqI..zi_n.at_i cf the bI'.'L"'..."l£'.-."'.!; 2.!-.-.-. pi.-=.-.i"..**...;'f
.. I...
* "'ngfi in the 'it was aiso contended that since
girl
plaintifi' married 30 years back during the life time of
father, she is no more mher cfjcint family-ofherihther
orthebmtherssoastoclahnpartition. Itwasalso
j""L-
.9)"
\»
..,q__
1' AI..- .l.'..4.I_.._ Itlgmh
ccfiterided that aifi the deatii in use luumr nm.ha*ap' in '
the year 1972, the bmothers Kalappa
have divided the properties '
19.08.1973 and sinct: that deity," I
p.m~-='H--n 1: .-3-.h-n.,.....1I..I.m It .§n;=a
the piainiifi' having ifi
guntas land, it is no clahn partition
in the rest oommdcd than
having T plaintifi' has belatedly,
ei' ha %*..'*-..:..-' em'. 9."...--.2'
'tine has come up with plum':
sun; rm csniime ground ofthc delay and hchcs
.§11it"Vis""ii£nble to be dismissed. The question
of court we was also raised.
Ont.hebaaisof'thepleading' " ofthcparflw ,tim
Court has raised the following issues:
1; whatw d plab1t(0"""'pmvast7aa¢tiIesuit
...//""
3!
.. _5.
and that she has a share
III. 1.... .a...n......I;... : "1... ' V'
Ill' W 93? ii
.-.».a----------
in an the suit
5)
Whetherdefindantsz 4, Sands
pmvetheemoutbru3'Gen¢rulPawer
ofAttomeyon12.7.J972n;fenadaoin
paraiéoftnau-" statement' ' 'T'
Q)!»
If'
\n
-5.
6) Mather plaintifl' proves that "
Jowposaeasion qrthe
amotwhatisthe ' %
7) Whether " is A
I'.-Irrpr run--w V' "
t.':a~*'."'* um-
%%%%
eeee%1om?s relief?
..... the me I l mm ' the an
the contention of the plninflfi' as to the
joint fa:-.*.fi:,' gar--r-'H--2 and it 119.; t_:l_I_Ig
POI 'Ann-i-I' in--an
meld tnatthe pnamuirhaafafied to prove that in-niairut
VA ofthe suit schedule pmpertsles. The usual Court
has held that the court fee paid 1 ineumcient.
.A..~.=:.=::l.Lf'.%!..V; it 11;; the suit with the direction
*
-7-
Section 35(1) ad' the Karnataka Oourt Va1uaflonAct(forahortthe'Act'). tt
3. It is these findings t and decree which are A no a A e
9. In the stated that as the suitjs possession, aha in n 5-9001- BR IIIIV III 'an an' ._.--.----' ----.. per swoon asifijyriw -- Act. 19, " £3--.1.-'.-.9!"-. knot.-1|,e-.1.-t..n-1.. to, L5,! me Regisuj 2 . offnc Registry' ' -is-mat" ' as per entanddec.ree,ainoe-itiaheldthat . of the -plaint.ifi' mm the suit schedule ""a'*"'""' "W oourt fee S.-.3"-" 9"') 0 is a specific finding against her, she is I-E-III \-IV!'-I. Elnfil up ~~pn_y um ' 5 Section 35 (2) ofthe
11. 'Phi omoe objection is--molatod by the pla_ir;t1f!',la_ppeLlant oonte-ram that aothe suit is ' 9"
It .3.
for partition and possession of separate has pleaded that she is in joint pronerti_ es alum with her 5:2; fime me: is = fares ouster is oonoerned, it is courts for the of are to be lookedpinto, that she is in joint 8-eeuen 35(2) 11;;
prrow. Itte Ln mm, as 'there is not vetatement and as no iue by the trial Court, the same the present for the purpose of court ' A A us: than In-nrnnrl Fnlinnnl firvr the nnrnllnrlf of the '1'-ion"oie supme in the case ofmmaurunn onus-ova. mnu jun onus reported in an 19:01:: 091 to that for the purpose of court fee, it is only the V' ""§"nnn'I"Innn in 1-115 nln-Inf In inln nun in than an haul:
LIL Call? IIJFIIIIJII andnotthepleaamg' " sinthewritwn" statem" entorthe -3- findings of the trial Court. It is plaintiff has throughout contended vis: possession of the pa'onerti_ es filier» AV caveamr-1espon6'o1;ts lie a case of ouster and henmitife Court fee in terms of subaseciiom15V'.( :33'-.'5.x;sf}t11e Act. Learned counsel also to the of 1, ___I_1_I_ __ __ ._I 111011 mans foiiows:
pm-"fic'mm"*"1y..t}n'=. I"-'_e-¢afits.§'kn""urxn of V '.lH..-_=!.n.4e.2 t--.h.n.t w-.2!!!-.9 4.3..-H-...thg' ~{j Kamna rm "iiavenotatlmttadnnetodealwitharayqf thesuitscheduleproperfizs. Itistrue that after the death of my father Baohappa, Kalappa and his sons and Namyanappa -and his sons were an on J! 'I----.-. --_.___.._._JJ__ _._._ p"7'6j3éfi'."fiausyuuauupmpsrtIesa1c 57"' .' ..-1,0"
the death of Bachappa, his sons and _____ I_____ .|.___.4.__'l 141.... -...,.. :9-.e§.' '-- ..
_;- 1,:
13. By "mid em oen1oe****, ieam*"'"ed _ counsel contended 'gvherein ouster is proved and the "be paid under sub-
Section §:ft1i..-.dAa. d rival contentious and on pemshug memorandum, the point for is %5'l*..-at.'-..-.:' the app-Rant b......*=-- to valm m (I »A vgm-i;t __ purpose of payment of Court fee and sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act ifany?'
15. An identical question had come up for _.é;onsidcl'Bfl0I1 in the case of T.K. IllNlVAIAEl'l'HY AND O1'EIl8Qbfl8 ANDOIHIEmmrfldmAH £9% CAB" $1.1 ..'......... 149. The *'- -= *1' "M M" e...: ...:1t 5'/0"
-11..
was filed seeking partition of suit schedule "as well as for a declaration that certain the defendants in respect of it b"1ding 'Ii t:"*-em. Siiit "as e-.-.:-.1'.-ep tiie Section 35(2) of the Act. the suit mm alia being in
-inn 9! s«_«.:e-:1 3.341;: ;::_-_-g-_ .1 ,................... an issue was suit is pmpmy valued jbr «If 9' _ were out of possession of the suit ', HI _' u-
h and should have valued the claim under .1... section {1} of Section 35 ofthe Am 1'. dis-...-ssh-.d mam . A "if the property and for non-payment of i" the court fee, after the time granted, the plaint was rejected. When the matter was questioned in this Court, tbllowm the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 991/
- 12- in the case of Neelavami (Supra), the nmsgpnf of this Court has held as follows:
-5. Further iai d._.....'l _. "
all loss to the %%%% by the plalnttflh % >V»"".::::.q'Wm propanm. % not be emczuaaa plea ampmpa uatuauon qfthe suit properties in the written »A IX?
UH'
6. % ,..... _ gfghg Simrmma Cnurt in the oaseQfM_/s.Commamia1Auiationand TravelCompanyu.Mrs.VimlaPannalal, AIR 1988 SC 1686. In the latter rnentionedcaseqfthesuprcmecourt, CaurtFaeActqftheUnionTerrltory¢' G E I S 3 I I I inl-In sunnnaurf fhp /"AL.-r 7' .. 11.
Law correctness of 'V W mm» "*A%% flmn the mm»: '*:.'sc
._.._..-.... .1: 3-..._%;.' 'a:,.;;:.,..:.:.a.:.fi_ I puipusc cg 'uuu. __ »V
16. _ -unumm-"A vi:
sittlatifin, various case laws and the % 'V ".:...'.'.'. .§.- Ara,' am... 4... ». ....... .4- p1.u.~.u l.l.L.l.UGI.l£U.I.£l~-B UL uni uuuut. nu um.» uuuvu us % VNa¢1a§§thi.,A'V(8upxa), the Division Bench has as foiiowa:
.. '11. We may now conveniently " sumnca'isetheprinatJlearelaflragtoCoIutgf'ec in regard to suits for partlflotu and appoahfln-rnfiom:
1"aum-vlfqfcmrt-" 'iuwiiia-p-H' ' ...._.._......;. ..;.....,.. iii ilfifx' nuwwuux ft.' 1?
'II.
.. 1...'..-
relating ¢a%courtL_ A A
-I I Vdl-aqua: " 'II -n--;'--- V 5 ' EHLIIIUBU WK", ' }}»E.""'.........."':3'--"""":"!:."; -'.,-,1" the me pwpwe 0! ._ onthebasisqfthcavermentslnthe wrflwnstmemmgwmfiwbmbq' falling mum 3.3511) qf flu me, dmwpdmdflummuohlau while raulcrlmlJu¢luIunt._ The 4%» fl .. 15- only exception is when the .4 can alter my ;n~.= ' » llillv WWW. -I-'4 TUB W015' _I$IV Iavlnciiajs stafmn-mIt...._--._-, !_.ft1c;- :awr_,u °' 195*' $1, '"9 MW ".. V' .°. .4-....;.a........ .1: .. {_}'Ii.._uIfTaga:aUIuuuJr¢ lg cuwustuz, 9 'I'«r"Iu d§.'s'."}5.'i9l-'$5' 3.1': d'..:..-'':: d itcanonlyholdthatthecasedoes notfhll under 835(2) and. tlmvejbm. plaivntfiisnotentaftledtoraliqfi 5 cannot, in thejudgmont, hold that the case Q" plainly?' should be oa1egorisedunderS.85(1)nordirect the to pay Courfiw on . ""'f"'j"fhr:
Afi.
£444 V ' merely Lu .. 1.7..
(nu ma com-In
In
by an pl-new
AAAA d-at-ton. ma
"ou the appeal will at!!! A flu pram in the com ............!J.. J I WWI amps»
-1' t_.e £].....'!...._'l'&------!1 .1' .19.'! _s is __-..... A.'I_.. Afi._1_ ....a. I. _.l.'I 1.1.. ._A. A. __'l_1_;..lfl_I 'oo'u11nai'fic1uu1a:Ihep1amuni§ ":1? possession and has been excluded' from possession, ' will be no change in the Court fee payable in the appeal by the plainflfi' against the judgment and decree of the trial .C.,u.rf- The ('mitt fa ,w.I.=.,v.t.=J.;!e on 2.:-'.'!'...! is the go"
-
same as the Court the paid on the plaint of first instance i.c., in terms of Section 49 Act of the said uAlnu:'l"J'ITl' 53% winning -93-} .|'I'a'|THu" '1' an-3 3") in All man an 591 and this ha.-ée iigggflendezgd in identical c1rcum' smm=e' = " s. C , t6%%thVe aspect of valuation for the purpose payment of court fee, the office over ruled. objections with regard to fee is unsustainable and we hereby J Sd/3 Juége Sd,/~ Judge bb