IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7879 OF 2014 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
SRI. L MUNIYAPPA S/O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/2, 4TH CROSS, LAKSHMAIAH GARDEN, NEAR SRINIVAGILU VILLAGE, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 047.
(BY SRI. M C JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT MUNISANJEEVAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 2. MUNISHANKAR, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. R SEENAPPA, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. R RAVI, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.10 (OLD NO.4/1), 4TH CROSS, LAKSHMAIAH GARDEN, NEAR SRINIVAGILU VILLAGE, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 047.
… PETITIONER 5. L CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, S/O LAT LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 6. L CINNANNA, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 7. C RAMESH, S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 8. C MADURAMMA, W/O L CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.4/2, 4TH CROSS, LAKSHMAIAH GARDEN NEAR SRINIVAGILU VILLAGE, VIVEKNAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 047.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T K RAJAGOPALA & SRI. R MUKUNDAN, ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO 4;
V.C.O. DATED 04.03.2014, NOTICE TO R5 TO 8 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE 44TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE IN O.S.NO.10732/2006 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2014 PASSED ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE VALUATION SLIP IN O.S.NO. 10732/2006 BY THE 44TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEX-G.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioner – defendant has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 08.01.2014 made by the trial court rejecting his application for true and correct valuation of the subject matter of the suit and thereby holding that the valuation done by the respondent – plaintiff and the payment of court fee made pursuant thereto are true and correct. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their learned counsel who resists the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit is admittedly for a decree of declaration of title to and possession of the subject property and therefore the valuation as was directed to be done vide order dated 07.03.2013 (Anenxure-R2) to the Statement of Objections needs to be accomplished. This having been ignored, the impugned order is liable to be set at naught. He further submits that it is the settled legal position by virtue of the decision of the Apex Court and of this Court that the orders made in a proceeding at various stages operate as resjudicata and therefore the earlier order cannot be ignored.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the expression “immovable property” is defined under the provisions of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1897 and also Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 wherein the structures put up in a land become part of the land and therefore they constitute the material for valuation as a single package. So arguing learned counsel seeks allowing of the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiffs vehemently submits that although the suit is for a decree of declaration and possession, the same having been amended later is now one for possession of the suit property after demolition of the structures existing thereon and therefore, the value of the structures cannot be taken into account while evaluating the subject property. He further submits that the said structures having been put up by the petitioner-defendants after the filing of the suit, cannot be taken note of while assessing the market value of the property for the purpose of suit valuation and payment of court fees. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that by the impugned order, the court has only rectified the mistake which it had committed earlier and it is always open to the Court to set right the mistake committed by it and there is no warrant for indulgence in the writ petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the writ petition papers and also the Statement of Objections.
6. Suit is admittedly for a decree of declaration and possession of the subject property which is an immovable property. The definition of immovable property given under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 3(26) of the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1897 necessarily includes the permanent structures standing thereon and therefore even if the petitioner wants possession of the property after demolishing the existing structures, he has to reckon the said structures whilst evaluating the property on which they exist for the purpose of suit valuation and payment of court fees.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Court has only rectified the mistake earlier committed by it is very difficult to accept because the impugned order does not show that, that is the ground on which the trial Court has made it although such a submission was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs during the course of hearing in the Court below. It is a settled legal position that when an order is made on specific grounds, the validity of the same has to be adjudged only on those grounds and not others vide AIR 1978 AIR SC 851 Mohindar Singh Gill & Another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others. Therefore, this contention does not avail to the respondent-plaintiffs.
8. Admittedly, the Court below vide order dated 07.03.2013 a copy whereof is produced by the respondent -plaintiffs at annexure-R2 to their Statement of Objections had directed as under:
“The plaintiffs are hereby directed to submit fresh valuation slip and to pay the court fee as required U/s.24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, including the value of the structures standing on the suit schedule property.”
Thus, the plaintiffs were specifically directed to value the structures standing on the schedule property and this order having not been challenged by the plaintiffs remains intact vide AIR 1992 SCC 111 , Paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Gurudevraj Singh and Ashok Kumar. This apart, the orders made by the Courts at different stages of the same litigation operate as resjudicata and therefore, the impugned order which is in variance with what was already decided is liable to be struck down.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order with a direction to the respondents to value the suit property along with the structures existing thereon for the purpose of suit valuation and payment of court fees. The court below shall facilitate the said exercise expeditously.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv