Dismissed

Masooda Begum v. Smt P S Sangeetha

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2022WP/6406/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Trial Court order rejecting plaintiff's application to avail court fee exemption under Section 29 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Court held countervaliant relief justified fee under Section 26(c) and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; trial court order dated 17th December 2018 affirmed; liberty to frame issues on pleadings including court fee.

Masooda Begum Vs Smt P S Sangeetha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6406 OF 2019(GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

MASOODA BEGUM W/O MAJEEDUR RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.34/2, CHINNAPPA LAYOUT, KACHARAKANAHALLI DAKALE KHAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MOIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT. P S SANGEETHA W/O P R SATHYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.440, ELEMALLAPPA ROAD, BANGARAPET-563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶12

SMT. K P KALPANA W/O K V PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.587, K.R.N. COMPLEX

¶13

¶14

BAZAAR STREET, BANGARAPET-563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT B S SUNITHA W/O B R SATHYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.3547, 4^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGARAPET-563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶16

SRI P R SATHYANARAYANA S/O P M RAMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.440, ELEMALLAPPA ROAD, BANGARAPET-563 114 KOLAR DISTRICT

¶17

….RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SWETHA G DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI V VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 17^TH DECEMBER, 2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU DISMISSING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT I.A.NO.III OF 2017 IN O.S.NO.5335 OF 2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 29 OF KARNATAKA COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT; AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.5335 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge Bengaluru, challenging the order dated 17^th December, 2018, rejecting IA.III filed under Section 29 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), filed by the plaintiff.

¶24

The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the plaintiff has filed a suit against defendants seeking relief of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint and also sought for counter claim in the suit. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has filed IA.III under Section 29 of the Act, seeking direction to defendants to pay Court fee, since the defendants have sought for relief of mandatory injunction in the counter claim filed by them. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court, by impugned order

¶25

¶26

dated 17^th December, 2018 rejected the IA.3. Feeling aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has preferred this writ petition.

¶27

Sri Rahamathulla Kothwal, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner contended that the relief sought for by defendants in the counter claim itself is not maintainable unless the defendants claim relief of declaration with consequential relief of possession. In that view of the matter, he submitted that the finding recorded by the trial Court rejecting IA.3 filed by the plaintiff is incorrect which requires interference in this writ petition.

¶29

Per contra, Smt. Swetha G. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of V. Vinod Reddy, for the respondent, invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 9 in the written statement and the counter claim filed by defendants and submitted that the plaintiff is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property and it is not disputed in the plaint that the defendant is not the owner of the property and therefore, relief sought for in the counter claim for issuing direction to the plaintiff to vacate and hand over the keys of the premises in the

¶30

¶31

suit schedule property, is just and proper and she further submitted that with regard to the same, the defendants have paid Court fee under Section 26(c) of the Act, which is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this writ petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the prayer made in the plaint as well as the prayer made in the counter claim filed by the defendants as per Annexure-B. It is the case of the defendants before the trial Court that the defendants are the owner of the property and allowed the plaintiff in permissive possession of the suit schedule property since 06^th November, 2009 and therefore, the claim is made with regard to seeking relief of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to vacate and handover keys of the premises in question. In that view of the matter, the trial Court having taken note of the provisions contained under Section 26(c) of the Act, has held that the Court fee paid by the defendant is just and proper and I am of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. In that view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merits and accordingly

¶33

¶34

rejected. It is also made clear that since the issues are yet to be framed in the suit, the trial Court is at liberty to frame the issue relating to the pleadings on record including the court fee, taking into account the relief sought for by both the parties.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

lnn

Masooda Begum v. Smt P S Sangeetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masooda Begum v. Smt P S Sangeetha

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 Mahimahesh Vs Sri Swamy

Smt. Puttagangamma @ Gangamma Vs Smt. Neelamma

Puttanarasamma Vs M G Pandurangaiah

Smt. Muthamma Vs Sri. Shivappa B C

Sri M Muninanja Vs Sri N Changalarayan

A. R. Ramaprasad Vs Smt. Shoba Devi