IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1394 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA, @ LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RANGASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST & HOUSEWIFE, R/O OPPOSITE LAXMAN GARAGE, SAVARLINE ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
2. SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O RANGANATH, HOUSEWIFE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O BESIDE RAMA TEMPLE, SAVARLINE ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
3. SMT. NEELAMMA, W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O NILA-NAGARAJ NILAYA, OPPOSITE LAXMAN GARAGE, SAVARLINE ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
4. SMT. MANJULA, W/O K N GOPALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O OPPOSITE LAXMAN GARAGE, SAVARLINE ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONERS AND:
1. SRI. NARASIMHARAJ, S/O LATE RANGASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ATTENDER AT “SANDALWOOD FACTORY”, AT SHIMOGA, R/O” PREMA NARASIMHA” NILAYA, 12TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE : 577 201.
2. SRI. VARADARAJU, S/O LATE RANGASWAMI, AGRICULTURIST, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O DEVANOOR NINGAPPA COMPLEX, BEHIND SUBBAIAH COMPLEX, HOSAMNE, 4TH CROSS, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
3. SRI. VENKATESWAMI, S/O LATE RANGASWAMI, BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O OPPOSITE LAXMAN GARAGE, SAVARLINE ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
4. R. PRAKASH, S/O LATE RANGASWAMI, BUSINESS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O OPPOSTITE LAXMAN GARAGE, SAVARLINE ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE:577 201.
5. SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O MALLEGENAHALLI EXTENSION, OPPOSTITE ANJANEYA TEMPLE, SHIMOGA CITY, PIN CODE: 577 201.
(BY SRI. P N HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; R1 TO R4 SERVED) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SHIMOGA IN O.S.NO.17/2015, VIDE ANNEX-A IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONERS TO RE-VALUE THE SUIT UNDER SECTION 38, INSTEAD OF SECTION 24(d) OF THE KARNATAKA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1958 AND AWARD COSTS OF THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners being the plaintiffs in a partition and declaration suit in O.S.No.17/2015 are grieving before this Court against the order dated 01.12.2016 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Shivamogga having found the suit valuation to be defective and payment of Court fee being deficient has directed the petitioners to revalue the suit and make good the deficit court fee.
2. After service of notice, the contesting respondent – defendant having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the writ petition. Despite service of notice, the other respondents have chosen to remain unrepresented, in their wisdom.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court is of the opinion that relief needs to be granted to the petitioners since the fact matrix of the present writ petition is substantially similar to the case in SUHRID SINGH @ SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS, AIR 2010 SC 2807, wherein the Apex Court in identical set of facts has held that the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the plaintiffs’ father is null & void is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed and therefore the Court fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds at all.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is set at naught.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv