Dismissed

Sri B R Raghavendra Babu v. Sri B R Vijayakumar

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2014WP/344/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court considered objections-made by respondents to the court fee valuation in a civil suit. The Court held that since the suit did not seek a declaration of title for the petitioner's own property but aimed to set aside a compromise decree involving non-party property, the valuation under Section 24(b) was misplaced. The trial court was direc

What did the court decide?

Direction accepted by trial court to accept valuation under Section 24(d) based on plaintiff's figures; petition disposed of.

Sri B R Raghavendra Babu Vs Sri B R Vijayakumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.344 OF 2012 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. B.R.Raghavendra Babu, Son of Late Sri. B.N.Rangaiah Setty, Presently aged about 58 years, No.155, II Floor, Ranga Chambers, R.V.Road, V.V.Puram, Bangalore – 560 004.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. N. Krishnananda Gupta, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri. B.R.Vijayakumar, Son of Late Sri. B.N.Rangaiah Setty, Presently aged about 54 years, No.247E, 14^th ‘A’ Cross, ‘A’ Sector, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore – 560 064.

¶13

Sri. B.R. Gopalakrishna,

¶14

Son of Late Sri. B.N.Rangaiah Setty,

¶15

¶16

Presently aged about 53 years,

¶17

Mrs. B.G.Meena, Wife of Mr. B.R.Gopalakrishna, Presently aged about 46 years,

¶18

Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are Residing at No.253/C, 13^th Main, Banashankari 1^st Stage, Bangalore – 560 050.

¶19

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary and Commissioner for Revenue, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.

¶20

[R-4 impleaded vide court Order dated 10.4.2012]

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(By Shri. K.S.Chandrahasa, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶23

Shri. Vasanth V Fernandez, Government Pleader for Respondent No.4)

¶24

¶25

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the connected records pertaining to Annexure – E dated 3.11.2011 in O.S.No.6009/2011 on the file of the City Civil Judge CCH38, Bangalore and to quash the Annexure-E dated 3.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.6009/2011 on the file of the City Civil Judge, CCH38, Bangalore and etc;

¶26

¶27

This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

¶30

learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶31

The petitioner is said to be the plaintiff who has filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration that the compromise decree recorded by the court below in O.S.No.26921/2001, to which the present petitioner was not a party, is not binding on the plaintiff.. However, the compromise decree is said to relate to a portion of the plaintiff’s property and therefore, being aggrieved by the compromise decree, the present suit is filed.

¶32

The court below has taken objection to the valuation made and has insisted that the petitioner pay the court fees in terms of Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KCFSV Act’, for brevity), which would require the market value of the

¶33

¶34

property in question to be valued and the court fee paid accordingly. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however insists that since the suit originally filed by defendants 2 and 3 was one for bare injunction and since the compromise decree passed in the same is sought to be set aside, the question of the present petitioner paying the court fee on the market value of the property that may be involved is out of place and hence would seek that there be an appropriate direction to collect the court fee as valued on the basis of the valuation furnished by

¶35

the plaintiff which is under Section 24(d), which is in accordance with law.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the respondents has not much to contribute and he would submit that it is a matter between the State and the plaintiff.

¶37

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not seeking a declaration of title in respect of the subject property. It is not in dispute also that the plaintiff’s property has been included in the compromise petition though

¶38

¶39

the plaintiff was not a party to the suit originally filed by defendants 2 and 3 as against defendant no.1. Therefore, the question of the petitioner being called upon to pay the court fee as if he is seeking a declaration of title of his own property may be misplaced. Accordingly, the valuation made by the plaintiff may be accepted by the trial court.

¶40

The petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sri B R Raghavendra Babu v. Sri B R Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B R Raghavendra Babu v. Sri B R Vijayakumar

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

Sri Bapakunhi Vs Sri Vishwanatha Rai

Gowramma Vs Kalamma

Sri B Raghuveer Acharya Vs Smt N S Geetha

T. Nagaraj Vs Sri G M Nageshbabu

K M Abdul Gafoor Vs S Vijayalakshmi

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs Smt K Pushpa