IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA WP NO OF 2015 (GM-CPC)

Transcription

1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V. CHANDRASHEKARA BETWEEN: WP NO OF 2015 (GM-CPC) SRI S. BHOJA NAIK S/O LATE SHANKARA NAIK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SECRETARY OF MINERVA S C /S T VIDYA SAMSTHE & SOCIAL WORKER ASHOKANAGAR ANNANAGAR, SHIMOGA PETITIONER (BY SRI G S BALAGANGADHAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 2. SRI T P DINESH S/O LATE T Y PUNDALEEKA RAO AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

2 2 3. SRI T P YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. SMT T P SUNITHA D/O LATE T Y PUNDALEEKA RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. SMT T P SHARMILA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 6. SMT T P GEETHAMMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,... RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN.] SHIMOGA IN O.S. NO. 153/2013 DATED VIDE ANN-C ON COURT FEE.

3 3 THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 2. Petitioner is the sole plaintiff in an original suit bearing OS No.153/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Shivamogga. He has sought for relief of declaration of title for having acquired the same in respect of Schedule C property i.e. vacant residential site measuring 40' x 60'. He has furnished a valuation slip valuing the property in question under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, but it was objected to by the defendants. The Trial Court has passed a detailed order directing the present petitioner/plaintiff to value the property in terms of Section 24(b) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and to pay necessary Court fee on one half of market value of the property. The defendants have furnished guideline

4 4 value issued by the Government in respect of property in question, relating to the year Hence, the learned Judge has directed the plaintiff to assess the market value of the site in question, on the basis of the guidelines value reflected in the documents published for the year It need not be retreat the guidelines value which prevailing as on the date of filing of the suit would be proper value for the purpose of assessing the Court fee in terms of the Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Act. 3. With the above observation, the petition is disposed of. The learned Judge has rightly directed the plaintiff to value the property in terms of Section 24(b) and to take Court fee on the basis of the market value which was prevailing as on the date of the filing of this suit. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel Sri G.S. Balagangadhar that the suit is being capable of value under Section 24(d) does not merit any consideration.

5 5 4. It is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mr. V. Prabhakar vs. K. Raja and Others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 3558, in which, it is held that, it is the specific duty of the Court to ascertain the nature of the suit and the relief claimed. In order to perform such exercise, the Court has to first ascertain the substantial relief sought for in the plaint. If a substantial relief is claimed, though clothed in the garb of a declaratory decree with a consequential relief, the Court is entitled to see what is the real nature of the relief, and if satisfied, that it is not a mere consequential relief but a substantive relief, it can demand the proper Court fee on that relief, irrespective of the arbitrary valuation put by the plaintiff in the plaint on the ostensible consequential relief. No costs. Sbs* Sd/- JUDGE