Allowed

Sri Rohith Reddy v. Sri Mahadeva Naika

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2014WP/22884/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed multiple writ petitions seeking to quash lower court orders accepting property valuation in suits. It held that the trial court erred in accepting the plaintiff's valuation without adjudicating the defendant's preliminary plea regarding improper valuation under Section 11 of the KCFSV Act before evidence commenced.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed; the orders of the court below accepting the plaintiff's valuation were set aside, and the trial court was directed to frame an issue regarding valuation and court fees

Sri Rohith Reddy Vs Sri Mahadeva Naika — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^th DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.25086-25087 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.22879 AND 24184 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.22880 AND 24842 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.22881 AND 24818 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.22882 AND 24880 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.22883 AND 24822 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.22884 AND 24817 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶9

WRIT PETITION Nos.25080-25081 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.25082-25083 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION Nos.25084-25085 OF 2012 (GM-CPC) IN W.P.Nos.25086-25087 OF 2012

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road,

Bangalore – 560 025.

…PETITIONER

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Srinivasa Naika, Son of Late Ranga Naika, Residents of Halliddi Village, Chikkaiahnachatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶18

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶21

¶22

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-E and F dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.199/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud and etc;

¶23

IN W.P.Nos.22879 AND 24184 OF 2012

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A,

¶26

¶27

Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶28

…PETITIONER

¶29

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate) AND:

¶30

Sri. Marigowda @ Polki, Son of Nanjegowda, Aged about 51 years,

¶31

Nanjegowda, Son of Nanjegowda, Aged about 56 years,

¶32

Sri. Chikkegowda, Son of Nanjegowda, Aged about 50 years, All are residents of Halliddi Village, Chikkaiahnachatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶33

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Notice to Respondent No.3 served and unrepresented Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.4) *****

¶36

¶37

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-F and G dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.202/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud and etc;

¶38

IN Nos.22880 AND 24842 OF 2012

¶39

BETWEEN:

¶40

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶41

…PETITIONER

¶42

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate) AND:

¶43

Sri. Mahadeva, Son of Late Doddaramegowda, Aged about 47 years, Residing at Hallididdi Village, Chikkayyanachatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶44

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶45

…RESPONDENTS

¶46

¶47

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2) *****

¶48

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexures-F and G dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.203/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud and etc;

¶49

IN W.P.Nos.22881 AND 24818 OF 2012

¶50

BETWEEN:

¶51

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶52

…PETITIONER

¶53

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶54

AND:

¶55

Smt. Chikkaningamma, Wife of Madaiah, Daughter of Siddegowda, Aged about 64 years, Major,

¶56

Sri. Malaiah, Son of Late Malaiah, Aged about 56 years, Major,

¶57

¶58

Sri. M. Nagaraju, Son of Malaiah, Aged about 45 years,

¶59

Sri. H.M.Shivanna, Son of Malaiah, Aged about 38 years, Major,

¶60

All are residing at Hallididd Village, Chikkayyana Chatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶61

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶62

…RESPONDENTS

¶63

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.5)

¶64

¶65

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexures-F and G dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.215/2007 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud, by the issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction –as the case may be and etc;

¶66

IN W.P.Nos.22882 AND 24880 OF 2012

¶67

BETWEEN:

¶68

¶69

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶70

…PETITIONER

¶71

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶72

AND:

¶73

Sri. Chikkaramaiah, Son of Ramegowda, Aged about 66 years,

¶74

Sri. Mahadeva, Son of Ramegowda, Aged about 61 years,

¶75

Sri. R. Mahadeva, Son of Doddaramegowda, Aged about 47 years,

¶76

All are residing at Hallididdi Village, Chikkayyana Chatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶77

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶78

…RESPONDENTS

¶79

¶80

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.4)

¶81

¶82

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexures-F and G dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.212/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud, by the issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction – as the case may be and etc;

¶83

IN W.P.Nos.22883 AND 24822 OF 2012

¶84

BETWEEN:

¶85

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶86

…PETITIONER

¶87

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶88

AND:

¶89

Sri. Siddaiah, Son of Late Kempalingaiah, Aged about 56 years, Major, residing at Hallididdi Village, Chikkayyana Chatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶90

The State of Karnataka,

¶91

¶92

Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶93

…RESPONDENTS

¶94

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶95

¶96

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexures-F and G dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.213/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud, by the issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction – as the case may be and etc;

¶97

IN W.P.Nos.22884 AND 24817 OF 2012

¶98

BETWEEN:

¶99

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶100

…PETITIONER

¶101

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶102

AND:

¶103

Sri. Mahadeva Naika, Son of Madanaika, Aged about 56 years,

¶104

¶105

Sri. Madesha, Son of Mahadeva Naika, Aged about 36 years,

¶106

Both are residing at Hallididdi Village, Chikkayyana Chatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶107

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶108

…RESPONDENTS

¶109

(By Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.3 Notice to respondent nos. 1 and 2 served and unrepresented)

¶110

¶111

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexures-F and G dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.211/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud, by the issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction – as the case may be and etc;

¶112

IN W.P.Nos.25080-25081 OF 2012

¶113

BETWEEN:

¶114

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88,

¶115

¶116

Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶117

…PETITIONER

¶118

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶119

AND:

¶120

Smt. Siddamma, Wife of LateMadanaika, Aged about 76 years,

¶121

Sri. Marisiddanaika, Son of Late Madanaika, Aged about 41 years,

¶122

Sri. Puttamadanaika, Son of Late Madanaika, Aged about 34 years,

¶123

All are residing at Kadakola Village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk.

¶124

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶125

…RESPONDENTS

¶126

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.4)

¶127

¶128

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-E and F

¶129

¶130

dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.200/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud and etc;

¶131

IN Nos.25082-25083 OF 2012

¶132

BETWEEN:

¶133

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶134

…PETITIONER

¶135

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶136

AND:

¶137

Thimmaiah,

¶138

Son of Late Kunde Gowda, Aged about 58 years, Residing at Hallididdi Village, Chikkaiahnachatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶139

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶140

…RESPONDENTS (By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶141

¶142

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexures-E and F dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.210/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud and etc;

¶143

IN W.P.Nos.25084-25085 OF 2012

¶144

BETWEEN:

¶145

Sri. Rohith Reddy, Son of P.R.Chenna Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Residing at No.2A, Thomas Manor, 88, Richmond Road, Bangalore – 560 025.

¶146

…PETITIONER

¶147

(By Shri. G. Gangi Reddy, Advocate)

¶148

AND:

¶149

Thimmanaika Dead by legal representatives

¶150

Nanjamma, Wife of Rangaswamy, Aged about 45 years,

¶151

Mahadevamma, Wife of Ninganaika, Aged about 35 years,

¶152

Smt. Madamma, Wife of Nanjaiah, Major in age,

¶153

¶154

Nanja Naika, Son of Nanjaiah, Major in age,

¶155

Hucha Naika, Son of Nanjaiah, Major in age,

¶156

All are residing at Hallididdi Village, Chatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District.

¶157

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, By its Secretary, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶158

…RESPONDENTS

¶159

(By Shri. P. Nataraju, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Smt. Savithramma, Government Pleader for Respondent No.6)

¶160

¶161

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-E and F dated 17.4.2012 and 3.2.2012 passed in O.S.No.201/2006 by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Nanjangud and etc;

¶162

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:

¶163

¶164

O R D E R

¶165

These petitions are disposed of by this common order and

¶166

since the issue involved is identical in the several suits.

¶167

The petitioner, who is common in all the petitions, is

¶168

the defendant in the several suits, out of which, these petitions arise. The petitioner is the purchaser of the several properties that are involved in the several suits and had also filed his written statement in all the suits raising several contentions that the suit is improperly valued and the land in question is converted for non-agricultural use and should have been accordingly valued. The court below, while addressing the said issue as regards the valuation, has observed that there are several contentions which require to be adjudicated as regards fraud and other highly disputed aspects. Therefore, since it is open for the court below to address the court fee paid or the valuation made even at a later stage, the court below having proceeded to accept valuation made by the plaintiff under

¶169

¶170

section 7(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1958 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KCFSV’ Act’ for brevity) while negating the contention raised by the petitioner – defendant, would run counter to the mandatory provision under Section 11 of the KCFSV Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the KCFSV Act reads thus:

¶171

“(2) Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the court decides that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the court’s decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit.”

¶172

Therefore, since the objection is as regards the valuation,

¶173

which would be a phenomenal amount, if the land is to be treated as converted for non-agricultural use, it was incumbent

¶174

¶175

on the court to address the issue even before the commencement of evidence. The same cannot be recorded at a later date on the footing that the court would have the power to address the same even at a later date. Hence, on this issue, the court would necessarily have to frame an issue as to whether valuation of the suit is in accordance with law and the court fees paid thereon is in relation to the subject matter of the suit and address the same as a preliminary issue and thereafter proceed with the suit. With that observation, the petitions would have to be allowed.

¶176

Though the learned Counsel for the respondents would seek to justify the order of the court below and it is sought to be pointed out that the court has not decided the matter finally and it is left open, it is mandatory that the court address the issue in the first instance before proceeding further. This is the well settled legal position. Therefore, the court below is directed to frame an issue as regards the valuation and

¶177

the court fee payable and thereafter proceed with the same.

¶178

¶179

With that observation, the petitions are allowed. The

¶180

order of the court below is set aside.

¶181

Incidentally, Shri Gangi Reddy would raise a serious objection as regards certain observations made by the court below. Since they are mere observations nothing turns on the same and they cannot be treated as findings of fact. Though Shri Gangi Reddy is seriously offended by the language used, as already stated, it has no legal effect and is to be ignored.

¶182

Sd/JUDGE

¶183

Sri Rohith Reddy v. Sri Mahadeva Naika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rohith Reddy v. Sri Mahadeva Naika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh @ Ramanna S/O Govindappa Vs Sadiq Ahemad S/O Busheer Ahemad Khajiand Anr.

Sharanappa S/O Hemareddy Besatti Vs Sadiq Ahemad S/O Busheer Ahemad Khajiand Anr.

Shashikala W/O Alte Govardhan Korekar and Anr. Vs Umesh S/O Shanmukappa and Anr.

Sri T Ramachandra Vs Sri Mandali Ranganna

National Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs Sri Uc Krishnamurthy Bhat

Sri Rohith Reddy Vs Sri Chikkaramaiah