Karnataka High Court
Yallappa S/O Mallappa Anigol vs Basappa S/O Ramappa Anigol on 12 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10463
RFA No. 100230 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100230 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. YALLAPPA S/O MALLAPPA ANIGOL
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RUDRAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591119.
2. SHRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O YALLAPPA ANIGOL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RUDRAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591119.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T PATIL & SRI. ROHIT S PATIL, ADVOCATES)
Digitally
signed by
AND:
GIRIJA A
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
BYAHATTI Date:
2023.09.13
1. SHRI. BASAPPA S/O RAMAPPA ANIGOL
11:06:21
+0530 AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RUDRAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591119.
2. IRAPPA S/O RAMAPPA ANIGOL
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RUDRAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591119.
3. SHRI. SOMAPPA S/O RAMAPPA ANIGOL
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RUDRAPUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591119.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W.96 OF
CPC., AGAINST JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.07.2014
PASSED IN O.S.NO.94/2011, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR
DECLARATION, INJUNCTION, PARTITION AND SEPARATE
POSSESSION.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10463
RFA No. 100230 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This appeal is listed today for compliance of office objections at Sl.No.5 and 6. Seven years have elapsed since the appeal is filed. Office objections are not yet removed. One of the office objections is to furnish valuation slip produced before the trial Court. However, the plaintiff has produced copy of the plaint.
2. On perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is filed based on one cause of action. Reliefs (A) to (H) are sought in the plaint. Relief (D) is an alternative relief seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Relief (A) is a declaratory relief, relief (B) is the relief for injunction in respect of 'B' schedule properties and relief (C) is the relief for partition in respect of 'C' schedule properties.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100230 of 2014
3. Section 6 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act of 1958', for brevity), deals with multifarious suits. Section 6(2) of the Act of 1958 reads as under:
Section 6 - Multifarious suits (1) xxxxxx (2) Where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees leviable on the reliefs. (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx The alternative relief of partition at relief (D) in the plaint is for partition of all the suit schedule properties, is chargeable with the court fee of Rs.200/-.
4. Section 6(3) of the Act of 1958 reads as under:
Section 6 - Multifarious suits (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx -4- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100230 of 2014 (3) Where a suit embraces two or more distinct and different causes of action and separate reliefs are sought based on them, either alternatively or cumulatively, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees with which plaints would be chargeable under this Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several causes of action:
(4) xxxxxx Section 6(3) of the Act of 1958 referred to above is applicable in a situation where the cause of action for each relief is different.
5. As already noticed, the cause of action to claim the distinct reliefs claimed in the suit is one and the same. This being the position, Section 6(2) of the Act of 1958 applies to this case and the court fee payable in respect of the relief sought would be the fee payable for the relief of partition and separate possession of all the properties, which are sought in the alternative.
6. As per the averment made in the plaint, the plaintiffs have claimed a total value of the property is Rs.20 -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10463 RFA No. 100230 of 2014 lakhs and they have further claimed that the value of the plaintiffs' ½ share is Rs.10 lakhs. This being the position, the appeal does not lie before this Court.
7. The appeal is dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. Registry to return the certified copy of the judgment and decree to the appellant. In case the appeal is filed before the jurisdictional Court, the time spent in prosecuting this appeal from 12.12.2014 till this date be excluded in computing the period of limitation.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab CT-PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1