IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA W.P.No.33980/2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. Smt A.N.Jayanthi Nagaraj @ Jayanthiraj W/o A.S.Nagaraj, Aged about 55 years, Coffee Planter, R/at Anajoor Village and Post, Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District-577132 ... Petitioner (By Sri. G Chandrashekharaiah, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt Devamma W/o A.P.Shivalingappa Gowda, Aged about 91 years, Agriculturist, R/at Megalaya Estate, Ballupet, Belagod Post, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District-573 134 2. Smt Jaya Neelakanta W/o B.S.Neelakanta, Aged about 60 years, Agriculturist, R/at Megalaya Estate, Ballupet, Belagod Post, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District-573 134 3. Smt B.N.Bharathi Niranjan W/o Niranjan, Aged about 61 years, R/at No.268,1st Main Road, Royal Shelters, IIMB Post, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru-560 026 4. Smt Kokila Ashok W/o Ashok, Aged about 51 years, Coffee Planter R/at Bilagaravalli, Venkatipete Post, Belur Taluk Hassan District-573215 5. Smt Kathyayini Madhukar W/o B.N.Madhukar, Aged about 51 years, R/at No.159,48th Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560 010 6. Smt Devika Shekar Jetti W/o Shekar Jetti, R/at Flat No.501, Vaishnavi Saphire, 13th Cross, 6th Main, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 055 7. Sri C.U.Haroon S/o Late Usman, Aged about 41 years, R/at No.1886, Christian Colony, Chikkkamagaluru-577 101 8. Sri P S Abdul Kahder S/o Late Abdul Hajee, Aged about 59 years, R/at Arshia Villa,1st Cross, Vaslane,Mangalore Dakshina Kannada-575 001 ... Respondents (By Sri S.Kalyan Basavaraj, Advocate for R1 to R6, Sri Adithya Kumar.H.R. for Sri.Dayanand.S.Patil, Adv. for R7 and R8 vide order dated 29.08.2018 Sri D.R.Anandeeswar, HCGP for state) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order dtd:16.7.2018 passed on I.A.No.5 filed by the R-7 and 8 under Section 11[2] of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, seeking direction to the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valution Act and to pay the Court Fee within one month from the date of the order, passed in O.S.No.162/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Mudigere, which is marked as Annexure-A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 16.07.2018 on the preliminary issue No.4 directing the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act,1958, and to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of suit within one month.
2. The plaintiff filed suit for declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 30.04.2014 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 is a product of fraud and to declare that the GPA registered on 04.03.2014 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is also product of fraud, misrepresentation and under influence, the plaintiff has also sought for permanent injunction etc., raising various contentions.
3. The defendants filed written statement denied the plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed issues on 22.08.2015, one of the issue was that the whether the defendants have proved the valuation of the suit is improper and the court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and entire material on record, the trial Court by the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 has held that the preliminary issue is answered in affirmative and the plaintiff was directed to value the suit under Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act,1958, and to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of suit, for the relief sought for, hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri.G.Chandrashekharaiah,learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 08.03.2019 and 02.04.2019, the matter was adjourned at the request of the petitioner to enable him to file appropriate application or memo to delete the very prayer(d) in the plaint, with regard to the registered sale deed dated 30.04.2014 that is how the matter was posted today. Further, on instructions he submitted that the application filed by the plaintiff for deletion of prayer(d) in the plaint to set aside the sale deed dated 30.04.2014 executed behind the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 which came to be deleted. Therefore, he submits that in view of subsequent development, the plaintiff was permitted to delete prayer(d) with regard to the registered sale deed dated 30.04.2014, the very contentions raised by the defendants before the trial Court with regard to issue No.4 would not arise now. The said submission is placed on record.
6. Sri.S.Kalyan Basavaraj, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6, Sri.Adithya Kumar.H.R. appearing on behalf of Sri.Dayanand.S.Patil for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and the learned HCGP for State, does not dispute the fact that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the plaintiff filed an application for deletion of the prayer(d) in the plaint with regard to setting aside the registered sale deed dated 30.04.2014.
7. In view of the aforesaid subsequent events and in view of the permission granted by the trial Court to the petitioner to delete the very prayer(d) with regard to setting aside the sale deed, question of payment of court fee on the subject matter of the sale deed dated 30.04.2014 as directed by the trial Court would not arise. The issue No.4 raised in view of the original pleadings now becomes redundant. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the court fee as directed by the trial Court.
8. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is disposed of, the very issue No.4 raised would not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside.
The suit is filed in the year 2014 and now we are in 2019, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously subject to co-operation of both the parties to the lis. Both the parties and their respective counsel are hereby requested to exhibits their institutional responsibility.
Sd/- JUDGE KPS