Dismissed

Sri Tarun P v. Sri Maruthi

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023CRP/737/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order that rejected a plaintiff's plaint as maintainable and for non-payment of court fee. The High Court held that the cause of action existed and the suit was correctly valued under the Karnataka Court-Fee Act.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed; the trial court's order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC was upheld.

Sri Tarun P Vs Sri Maruthi — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 737 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI TARUN P, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI RAMESH, NO.96, VEERASGARA VILLAGE, ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK BENGALURU - 560 064.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI MARUTHI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (DR. K. SHIVARAMAKARANTA LAYOUT) BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2023, IMPUGNED IN THIS REVISION PETITION, ON I.A NO.V IN O.S.NO.384/2023, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, ON I.A.NO.5 IN O.S.NO.384/2023, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶17

AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY TE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF CPC, AND THEREBY REJECT THE PLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND PASS SUCH ORDER/S AS THIS HONB'LE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.10.2023

¶21

passed by the VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bangalore Rural District in O.S.No.384/2023 by which an application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (b) of C.P.C was rejected.

¶22

The suit in O.S.No.384/2023 was filed for the

¶23

following reliefs:

¶24

a) Declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule properties;

¶25

b) Directing the 2nd defendant to disburse the compensation amount arising out of acquisition of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff only;

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶27

The suit property was the land bearing Sy.Nos.33/4 and 12/2 of Veerasagara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which purportedly was acquired by respondent No.2 herein for the purpose of formation of Dr. K. Shivaramakaranth Layout. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property belonged to Sri. Muttharayappa and after his death, it was inherited by his sons and the khatha stood in the name of his eldest son, Sri. Nanjappa, who was the Kartha of the family. After the death of Sri.Nanjappa, his younger brother Sri. Puttappa sold the land in favour of his younger brother Sri. Narasappa on 22.11.1978. The plaintiff claimed that as per the RTC for the year 1966-1967, it was mentioned that the younger brothers of Sri. Nanjappa namely Sri. Puttappa and Sri. Rangappa were entitled to their respective rights in the land bearing Sy.No.33/4 and accordingly, Sri. Puttappa was entitled to 25 guntas in Sy.No.33/4 and the remaining extent was in possession of the plaintiff, who is the son of Sri. Rangappa. He also claims that Sy.No.12/2 was acquired by Sri. Nanjappa and after his death, his brother Sri.Rangappa, i.e., the father of the plaintiff acquired the land in terms of an oral partition. He therefore, claimed that he was owner of the suit property and

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶29

that he was entitled to the compensation after it was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority for formation of Shivaramakarantha Layout.

¶30

The suit was contested by defendant No.1, who contended that the suit property bearing Sy.No.33/4 belonged to his grand father Sri. Muttarayappa and that after his death, he was the only surviving legal heir of Sri.Muttarayappa. He claimed that the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore, had held proceedings under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and passed an order dated 17.07.2017 directing the Tahshildar to prepare a sketch as per acquisition and exclude the area utilised for the road and incorporate the name of the person, who was in possession of the property. He submits that the Tahshildar accordingly, conducted an enquiry and found that defendant No.1 being the legal heir of Sri. Muttarayappa was entitled to continue as a Khathedar of the property. He contends that following this order, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order dated 04.01.2023 to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records and accordingly, his name was entered in the revenue records for the year 2022-2023. He submitted that the plaintiff was

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶32

claiming title to the property in question based on an un-registered release deed purportedly executed by his sisters and therefore, the suit was not maintainable. He also filed an application to reject the plaint on the aforesaid ground and also on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to value the suit property as it lay within the limits of the Bangalore Development Authority which had valued the suit property at a sum of Rs.2,27,87,011/-. He therefore, contended that the suit was liable to be rejected. The application was contested by the plaintiff, who claimed that the assertion made in the application were all questions of fact which had to be adjudicated after a trial and not by an interlocutory application.

¶33

The Trial Court after considering the contentions urged in the plaint, held that the plaintiff had claimed title to the suit properties and was based on sufficient cause of action. Consequently, it held that the suit cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no cause of action. Insofar as the ground urged under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) of C.P.C., is concerned, it held that the suit property was an agricultural land and that the suit was valued under Section 7 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. It further

¶34

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶35

held that unless question of Court fee is decided, the petitioner cannot invoke under Order VII Rule 11(b) of C.P.C. Consequently, it rejected the application in terms of the order, dated 30.10.2023.

¶36

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

¶38

(i) The plaint filed based an un-registered release deed

¶39

executed by the family members of the respondent No.1. Therefore, he contends that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff, to seek the relief of declaration that he is the owner.

¶40

(ii) He further contends that the one of the executants of the release deed had challenged the revenue entries made in the name of respondent No.1 before the Assistant Commissioner and that the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order, dated 17.07.2017, had directed an inspection of the property and to prepare a sketch as per the actual possession.

¶41

(iii) He submits that based on this order, revenue proceedings have been initiated by the Tahshildar, who indicated that the petitioner, who is in possession of the suit

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶43

property and being the sole legal heir of Sri. M.Puttayya, he was entitled to the property bearing Sy.No.33/4 and consequently, his name was entered in the revenue records. He submits that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the consequent order passed by the Tahshildar, are not challenged before any Court of law and has become final. He therefore, contends that the plaintiff has no subsisting right, title or interest in the property and hence, there is no cause of action for filing the suit . He further contends that the Bangalore Development Authority had assessed the market value of the property at sum of Rs.2,27,87,011/- and therefore, the suit ought to have been valued at said sum and could not have been valued under Section 7 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

¶44

(iv) That the suit is filed in respect of the compensation payable towards the acquisition of the land. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to receive 40% developed land in lieu of compensation and if respondent No.2 deposits the compensation before the Court, the petitioner may be deprived of a chance to claim the developed land as compensation.

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶46

The contentions urged by the petitioner to reject the plaint are evidently the contentions raised by him in the written statement. It is now well settled that the plaint can be rejected based on contentions urged by the plaint and not based on the contentions urged in the written statement. The petitioner contends that the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaratory relief based on an un-registered release deed. The plaintiff is the son of Sri. Rangappa, who purportedly was the brother of one Sri. Nanjappa, while the petitioner is the grand son of one Sri. Puttappa. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are related to each other. The question whether the petitioner alone is entitled to compensation or not is a question fact that has to be decided by the Trial Court and since the plaintiff has claimed title in respect of the property in question, it cannot be held that the suit is not based on any cause of action. Therefore, the contentions urged by the petitioner in this regard, is liable to be rejected.

¶47

Insofar as the contention regarding non-payment of Court Fee is concerned, the lands in question were admittedly assessed to land revenue, may be in the name of the petitioner herein. Since the suit is filed for declaratory relief, the plaintiff

¶48

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43742 CRP No. 737 of 2023

¶49

was entitled to value the suit property under Section 7 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suits must have been valued at a sum of Rs.2,27,87,011/-, is not sustainable, in view of the beneficial provisions contained in 7 of the Karnataka Court-Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

¶50

In that view of the matter, the contentions urged by the petitioner do not merit consideration. Hence, the petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. If the petitioner wants to protects his interest to claim 40% of the developed land in lieu of compensation, he may do so by filing appropriate application before trial Court and the trial Court may consider the application, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

¶51

PHM

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Tarun P v. Sri Maruthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tarun P v. Sri Maruthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr M R Jayaram Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Puttamma Vs Sri. Suresh Hegde

Prakash Gangappa Badiger Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.Lokesh Prabhu Vs Ms.Nikhita M

M/S Keshavlal and Company Vs M/S Hajee K Abdul

Sri. Krishnamurthy Subramanya Vs Smt Yogeetha B S