IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.50614 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Smt.Sarojamma, W/o Late Raghu, Aged about 65 years, Residing at Door No.2272, 5th Main, 4th Cross, Vinayakanagar (Paduvarahalli), Mysuru-570 012. … Petitioner (By Smt.Jayalakshmi.K.B, Advocate for Sri.O.Shivarama Bhat, Advocate) AND:
1.Smt Kempamma Aged about 73 years, Widow of Late Siddaiah @ Dyvaiah, R/at D.No.2573, 4th Cross, K.G.Koppal, Mysuru-570 014.
2.Smt Puttasiddamma D/o Late Siddaiah @ Dyvaiah, W/o Sri.Desigowda, R/at D.No.18, 3rd Cross, 4th Main Road, Jayanagar, Mysuru-570 014.
3.Sri Siddappa S/o Late Siddaiah @ Dyvaiah, Aged about 52 years, R/at D.No.2573, 4th Cross, K.G.Koppal, Mysuru-570 014.
4.Smt Sakamma D/o Late Siddaiah @ Dyvaiah, W/o Sri.Boraiah, R/at D.No.2385/1, New Kantharaja Urs Road, Mysuru-570 003.
5.Smt.Bharathi D/o Late Siddaiah @ Dyvaiah, Aged about 45 years, W/o Sri.Shivaramu, R/at D.No.17, 3rd Cross, 4th Main, Jayanagar, Mysuru-570 014.
6.Smt.Sushma D/o Late Kariappa, Aged about 29 years, Residing at Door No.2272, 5th Main, 4th Cross, Vinayakanagar (Paduvarahalli) Mysuru-570 012.
7.Smt.Prema W/o M.C.Nanjegowda, Aged about 59 years, R/at Pandapura Town, Near Railway Station, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District.
Pin-571 134.
8.Mysore City Corporation New Sayyaji Rao Road, Mysuru-570 024.
By its Commissioner. ... Respondents (By Sri.R.C.Nagaraj, Advocate for R3 & R5; Smt.M.P.Geetha Devi, Advocate for R8;
R-2 & R-4 are served v/o dated 27.10.2016, R6 & R7 are deleted) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 18.9.2014 passed on I.A.No.13 in O.S.No.384/2007 on the file of II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mysuru vide Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Defendant No.1(a) in O.S.No.384/2007 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Mysore, has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 18.9.2014 in rejecting the application filed by defendant No.1 in the said suit.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
The suit in O.S.No.384/2007 is for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction filed by the original plaintiff-Siddaiah. Since deceased, represented by his legal representatives, who are respondents No.1 to 5 herein. In the said suit, the first defendant is said to have purchased the suit schedule property from the second defendant-Smt. Prema, for valuable consideration shown in the Sale Deed conveyed by her. Initially, the suit was filed against one Kariyappa – defendant No.1. During the pendency of the proceedings, Kariyappa died. As his legal representative, the petitioner herein as defendant No.1(a) and 6th respondent in this proceeding, defendant No.1(b) have come on record in the Court below.
3. First defendant-Kariyappa, while he was alive had filed an application under Section 18 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 which is numbered as I.A.No.13, wherein, he contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued and hence should be rejected. In the said proceeding, detailed objections were filed by the original plaintiff contending that the suit schedule land was an agricultural land and that the same was sold by the second defendant in favour of first defendant under a registered Sale Deed, where, the valuation is shown as Rs.7 lakhs; therefore, the Court Fee is paid on the said amount, while seeking cancellation of Sale Deed dated 4.8.2005.
4. In the said proceeding, documents issued by Mysore Urban Development Authority in indicating that the suit schedule property was not within the territorial jurisdiction of Mysore City Corporation as on the date of suit, as such it was an agricultural land. Therefore, it is contended that the valuation slip filed along with the suit is just and proper. In that view of the matter, the said application is rejected.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned.
6. On going through the material available on record, it is clearly seen that the Court below has properly appreciated the material available on record to decide whether the Court Fee paid is just and proper or otherwise. Therefore, this Court after going through the order impugned, is of the considered opinion that the order impugned does not call for interference, accordingly this writ petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*