Partly allowed

Mr. Arokia Swamy v. Mr. R. Rajanna

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2021WP/13664/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Article 226 to quash a civil court order accepting valuation slips which failed to account for an anomaly where different extents were claimed for alternative prayers for injunction and possession. Court partly allowed petition, invalidating the order with liberty to file corrected slips.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.02.2020 invalidated; liberty to respondents to file correct valuation slips and petitioners to contest same.

Mr. Arokia Swamy Vs Mr. R. Rajanna — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13664/2020 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR. AROKIA SWAMY S/O LATE RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, LOURDU NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAPURA, VIRGO NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶8

SMT. MARIAMMA W/O C J FELIX SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶9

SRI FELIX FALI S/O JOSEPH GALI

¶10

SRI CRIZPIN FERRY S/O FELIX GALI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶11

JOSEPHINE FREEDA FERRY D/O FELIX FALI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶12

NO. 2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.46 LOURDU NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BASAVANAPURA, VIRGO NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶13

¶14

M/S SAMTHITHA BUILDERS PVT LTD COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ARDEN FAIR 7^TH FLOOR, PAI LAYOUT OLD MADRAS ROAD, BENNIGANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 016.

¶15

REP BY PRATHAP KUMAR REDDY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. H R ANANTHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE; P3 AND P4 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED P2 VIDE ORDER DATED 07.09.2021)

¶18

AND :

¶19

MR. R. RAJANNA S/O LATE RAYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶20

MT. MICHAEL RANI W/O LATE R. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

¶21

SRI. R. JAMES S/O LATE R. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. R. JOHN PETER S/O LATE R. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶23

ALL ARE R/AT "THAIYA NERALU" LOURDU NAGAR MAIN ROAD DODDA BASAVANAPURA VIRGO NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 049.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. SRIKANTH., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 IN O.S.NO.25801/2015 PASSED BY THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-74) PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S. No.25801/2015 on the file of the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ' the civil Court '], have impugned the civil Court's order dated 20.02.2020. The civil Court by this impugned order has concluded that the valuation slip filed by the respondents is correct and appropriate Court fee is paid.

¶30

Sri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that with the amendment to the plaint, the respondents, who

¶31

¶32

were seeking only permanent injunction against the petitioners from interfering with their alleged possession of immovable property described in the plaint ScheduleA, also pray for a mandatory injunction to demolish certain structures in such property with the alternative prayer that in the event it is concluded that the respondents are not in possession of the entire Schedule-A property, to direct the petitioners to deliver possession of such portion of the property to them. After this amendment, two valuation slips are filed respectively on 11.03.2019 and 06.11.2019.

¶33

Sri. H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy, from

¶34

these two valuation slips which are produced as Annexures, points out that the respondents have filed valuation slip valuing the prayer for possession mentioning different extents. In the first of the valuation slip, it is stated that the prayer is for possession of 4¼ guntas and in the second valuation slip, it is stated that

¶35

¶36

the prayer is for possession of an area measuring 300 sq. feet. The learned counsel emphasizes that the civil Court in concluding that the valuation slips filed are correct and proper Court fee is paid, has failed to consider this obvious and indisputable anomaly in the valuation slips.

¶37

Sri. K. Sanath Kumar Shetty, the learned counsel who appears for the learned counsel on record for the respondents, responds by stating that the first valuation slip which is filed on 11.03.2019 is insofar as the relief for mandatory injunction and the second valuation slip is with regard to the alternative prayer for possession, but he admits that there are certain obvious errors in the valuation slip filed on 11.03.2019. He submits that the respondents will have to file proper valuation slip keeping in mind the prayer for mandatory injunction.

¶38

¶39

5. Indeed, the anomaly in the valuation slips is

¶40

obvious, and it is also obvious that the civil Court has not considered this anomaly. The respondents will have to necessarily set forth the reasons for any difference in the extents for which they seek mandatory injunction and the alternative prayer for possession not only in the plaint but also in the valuation slips. This will ensure that the petitioners' case is categorically set forth and there is no confusion leading to protraction on that score.

¶41

Therefore, this Court is of the considered

¶42

view that the petition must be allowed in part invalidating the impugned order but with liberty to the respondents to file correct valuation slip vis-à-vis their prayer for mandatory injunction and the alternative prayer for possession with corresponding liberty to the petitioners to have their say in that regard. If the respondents take necessary action in this regard, the

¶43

¶44

civil Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶45

ORDER

¶46

For the foregoing, the petition is allowed in part, and the impugned order dated 20.02.2020 in O.S. No.25801/2015 of the LXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru is invalidated with liberty as aforesaid.

¶47

SD/- JUDGE

¶48

AN/-

Mr. Arokia Swamy v. Mr. R. Rajanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Arokia Swamy v. Mr. R. Rajanna

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

M/S Reddy Structures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Thimarayappa

Zilla Vokkaligara Sangha Shivamogga Vs Nirmala. D. C.

S.K. Madegowda Vs Boralingegowda

Smt Sobhamma Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri Murallikrishna Vs Sri I Vijayakumar

Sri H K Nataraj Vs Sri H S Girish