Disposed

Smt. Jameela Bi v. Mohammed Ibrahim

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/7673/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that since the underlying suit is disposed of and valuation is an issue for the pending appeal, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to raise the valuation ground in the appeal to prioritize the appeal's proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the valuation ground in the pending appeal.

Smt. Jameela Bi Vs Mohammed Ibrahim — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7673/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. JAMEELA BI W/O ABDUL LATEEF D/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.55-1 -78 KHAZI STREET BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALUU - 04.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A KUMARAVEL., ADVOCATE AND SRI. ABDUL KHADER, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT OLD NO.436/A, NEW NO.32 9^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶12

LUBNA KOUSER D/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

RESHMA KOUSER D/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

4.	MOHAMMED ZAHEER S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
5.	MOHAMMED SIKANDAR S/O LATE MOHAMMED ALI @ ABDUL WAHEED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
6.	ABIDA D/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
7.	ABDUL WAJID (DEAD) S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE LRS OF ABDUL WAJID ALREADY ON RECORD AS RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 11 ARE THE LRS OF THE DECEASED ABDUL WAJID.
8.	JABEEN TAJ W/O ABDUL WAJID AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
9.	MOHAMMED ASHWAQ S/O ABDUL WAJID AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
10.	AZRA KAUSER D/O ABDUL WAJID AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
11.	MOHAMMED JAFFAR S/O ABDUL WAJID AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
12.	NAVEEDA D/O ALTE MOHAMMED GHOUSE
	AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

13. KHALEEDA D/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶18

RESPONDENTS NO. 2 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO.399, 2^ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR EXTENSION BENGALURU - 560 011.

¶19

SYED ADIL PASHA S/O ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶20

SYED SHAISTA FIRDOSE W/O SYED ADIL PASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.13/3 KHAZI STREET BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 04.

¶21

SHAHNZA TAJ W/O AKBAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.16 RANAJI RAO ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560 004.

¶22

FAMEEDA BI (DEAD) W/O SYED NISAR PASHA D/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE R/AT 48/12

¶23

4^TH CROSS, BISMILLA NAGAR BENGALURU -29.

¶24

¶25

18. MOHABOO BI D/O LATE SHEIK MADAR SAB AND LAT PYARI JAN SINCE DEAD BY HER LR,

¶26

18(A). SMT SABRIN TAJ D/O KHALEEL AHMED R/AT NO.280 BDA QUARTERS 9^TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BENGALURU - 78.

¶27

NOOR AHMED (DEAD) S/O LATE SHEIK MADAR SAB AND LATE PYARI JAN R/AT NO.55/78 KHAZI STREET RANOJI RAAAO ROAD BENGALURU - 04.

¶28

MUSTAQ AHMED S/O LATE SHEIK MADAR SAB AND LATE PYARI JAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶29

RESPONDENTS NO.17 TO 20 ARE R/AT NO.55A - 78 KHAZI STREET BANGALORE - 04.

¶30

MAQBOOL BANU W/O MOHAMMED AMEER D/O LATE SHARFUNNISA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS,

¶31

21(A) SMT NAZEEMA BANU D/O MAQBOOL BANU AND MOHAMMED AMEER AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

¶32

¶33

R/AT NO.249, 5^TH CROSS MAJID ROAD, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN BENGALURU - 64.

¶34

21(B). ZAKIR HUSSAIN

¶35

S/O MOHAMMED AMEER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶36

21(C) JAVEED HUSSAIN S/O MOHAMMED AMEER AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶37

KHRUSHID BANU W/O SARDAR PASHA D/O LATE SHARFUNNISSA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO. 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT NO.183, SAMPEGEHALLI BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶38

... RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. M.P. SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.08.2022; NOTICE TO R1, R4 TO R22 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED ON PAYMENT OF COURT FEE, BY THE LEARNED LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-68) IN O.S.NO.9350/2015 IN DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE COURT FEE ON THE PLAINT AS PER SECTION 24(a) AND 35(1) OF THE KSCFSV ACT AND TO HOLD THAT THE SUIT IS PROPERLY VALUED AS PER SECTION 35(2) OF THE KCFSV ACT AND THAT FOR THE DECLARATORY RELIEF AS SOUGHT IN THE AMENDED PLAINT, THE PETITIONERS ARE REQUIRED TO VALUE THE SUIT AS PER SECTION 24(d) OF

¶41

¶42

THE KCFSV ACT AND TO PAY THE COURT FEE ACCORDINGLY.

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

This petition is by the first plaintiff in O.S.No.9350/2015 on the file of the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short, ‘ the civil Court ’). The petitioner has impugned the civil Court’s order dated 15.02.2020, and the civil Court by this impugned order has directed the petitioner to pay court fee on the amended plaint under Section 35(1) and 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The civil Court’s reasoning for this order reads as under:

¶46

The suit is filed for partition as well as for declaration to declare the old documents as null and void and it amounts to cancellation of Sale Deeds and Gift Deeds. Hence, the plaintiffs have to pay the court fee under

¶47

¶48

Section 35(1) and Section 24(a) & (b) of The Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act. It is not the suit in simplicitor for partition and claiming the share. That apart, the documents are sought to be declared as null and void and non-est under law. Hence, the plaintiffs have to assess the court fee as per the provisions of Section 35(1) and 24(a) of The Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.

¶49

The learned counsel for the second respondent has filed a memo for dismissal of the writ petition stating that the suit in O.S.No.9350/2015 is dismissed on 17.10.2020 and with the dismissal of this suit, the petition must be disposed of.

¶50

Sri A.Kumarvel, the learned counsel for the petitioner while not disputing that the suit in O.S.No.9350/2015 is disposed of on merits, submits that the petitioner has called in question the civil

¶51

¶52

Court’s judgment and decree dated 17.10.2020 in RFA No.770/2021 and this appeal is pending consideration. Therefore, this Court must tag this writ petition along with RFA No.770/2021. He also seeks leave to place on record the statement of objections to the memo for dismissal. The same is taken on record and made part of the records.

¶53

This Court must observe that the question of valuation would be alive for consideration in the appeal in view of the provisions of Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and lest the disposal of this writ petition impede the petitioner raising such ground in the appeal, the petition stands disposed of with just liberty in this regard to the petitioner.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

SA/Ct:sr

Smt. Jameela Bi v. Mohammed Ibrahim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jameela Bi v. Mohammed Ibrahim

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

Smt. Dolly John Vs Smt. Rajani Sathyanarayana

Pavithra Education Society Vs Thirumeni Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Terrier Security Services (India) Private Limited Vs the Oterra Bengaluru Electronics City Hotel Division

Mr. Subramanian Vs Smt. M. Shanthamma

Sri Mallappa Vs Sri Shankar

Sri Shivarama Vs the Superitending Engineer