Dismissed

Sri. Gajanan v. the State Transport Employees

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022WP/104826/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two connected writ petitions challenging a trial court order requiring respondents to pay court fee on the actual sale consideration in a suit for declaration that a sale deed was null and void, holding the trial court's reasoning as correct.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed with a direction that the trial court dispose of the suit expeditiously.

Sri. Gajanan Vs the State Transport… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 105279 of 2016 C/W. WP No. 104826 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 105279 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)

¶7

C/W.

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 104826 OF 2016

¶9

IN WP.NO.105279/2016 BETWEEN:

¶10

THE STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION BELAGAVI), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI IQBAL HUSSAIN IMAMSAB MANIYAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO.73, REVENUE COLONY, KANBARGI ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶11

THE STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION BELAGAVI), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI SHIVANGOUDA S/O.RAMANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: CHIKABAGEWADI, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

WP No. 105279 of 2016 C/W. WP No. 104826 of 2016

¶15

AND:

¶16

SRI.GAJANAN S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR KALAL, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAMPAGAON VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

SHRI NARAYAN S/O.CHANDRASHEKHAR KALAL, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAMPAGAON VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

SHRI MOHAMMAD MUZZAMBIL S/O TURABKHAN KITTUR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: NEAR SRINAGAR GARDEN, SRINAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶19

SRI RAMCHANDRA S/O.GIRIGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: VADGAON, BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED) (BY SMT. SURABHI KULKARNI, ADV.FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BE ISSUED AND THEREBY ORDER DATED 20.04.2016 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.90/2015 ON ISSUE NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-N MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED BY HOLDING THAT THE COURT FEE PAID BY PETITIONERS IS JUST AND PROPER U/SEC.24(D) OF KCF AND S.V. ACT.

¶22

IN WP.NO.104826/2016 BETWEEN

¶23

SRI. GAJANAN S/O.CHANDRASHEKHAR KALAL, AGE:58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAMPAGAON VILLAGE, TAL. BAILHONGAL,

¶24

¶25

WP No. 105279 of 2016 C/W. WP No. 104826 of 2016

¶26

DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶27

NARAYAN S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR KALAL, AGE:48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAMPAGAON VILLAGE, TAL. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SMT SURABHI R.KULKARNI, ADV. FOR PETITIONER NO.1 )

¶30

AND

¶31

THE STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION BELAGAVI) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SRI. IQBAL HUSSAIN IMAMSAB MANIYAR, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. H.NO.73, REVENUE COLONY, KANABARI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶32

THE STATE TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES UNION, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, REGISTERED UNDER TRADE UNION ACT (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION BELAGAVI) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. RAMAN GOUDA PATIL, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. CHIKBAGEWADI, TAL. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI V.S.TELI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SO AS TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.04.2016, ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.4 IN OS.NO.90/2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BELAGAVI VIDE

¶36

¶37

WP No. 105279 of 2016 C/W. WP No. 104826 of 2016

¶38

ANNEXURE-A SO AS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTSPLAINTIFFS TO PAY THE COURT FEE ON RUPEES 4,80,00,000/-.

¶39

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petitioners herein instituted a suit seeking for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 20.10.2014 executed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 was null and void.

¶42

The plaintiffs had valued the suit under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Act, 1958’) and paid a nominal Court fee.

¶43

However, the defendants entered appearance and contended that the suit was under valued and Court fee paid was improper.

¶44

The Trial Court taking note of the fact that the prayer of the plaintiffs was for a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 in favour of

¶45

¶46

WP No. 105279 of 2016 C/W. WP No. 104826 of 2016

¶47

defendant Nos.1 and 2 was null and void, it was essential that the Court fee should be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed and accordingly passed the impugned order.

¶48

The petitioners herein are challenging the said order and at the same time, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have also filed writ petition challenging the said order.

¶49

The petitioners/ plaintiffs contend that the direction of the Trial Court to pay Court fee on the sale consideration was improper and the Trial Court ought to have accepted the valuation and the payment of Court fee as per Section 24(d) of the Act, 1958.

¶50

The defendant Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand, contend that the Court fee was required to be paid on the actual market value and not on the sale consideration.

¶51

In my view, the reasoning of the Trial Court that

¶52

the Court fee was required to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed is just and

¶53

¶54

WP No. 105279 of 2016 C/W. WP No. 104826 of 2016

¶55

proper. It is to be noticed here that the Trial Court was basically dealing with a prayer, which specifically related to the validity of the Sale Deed and therefore the sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed was rightly held to be the factor for determination of Court fee.

¶56

The argument of the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 2 that the Court fee had to be paid on the market value of the property cannot be accepted in the light of the specific prayer made in the plaint regarding declaration sought in respect of the Sale Deed. I find no reason to entertain these writ petitions, same are accordingly dismissed.

¶57

The Trial Court shall make all efforts to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible subject to the cooperation of both parties.

¶58

sd JUDGE

¶59

CKK

Sri. Gajanan v. the State Transport Employees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Gajanan v. the State Transport Employees

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

N Shrinivas Rao S/O N Gopalswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Laxmi Venkateshwara Industries Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Zaheera Begum W/O Syed Abdul Rasool Sab Khazi Vs the Karnataka State Board of Auqaf

Babu Ankalagi S/O Laxman Vs Dundappa Ankalagi S/O Laxman

Smt. Savita W/O. Late Laxman Madivalar Alias Agasar Vs the Commissioner

A a Sawar S/O Abdul Khadar Vs Agricultural Produce Market