Dismissed

Girijadevi W/O Shivanand Dandin v. Mallappa S/O Veerappa Halakatti

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2023WP/107088/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the order dismissing applications to recall a witness and produce a guidance value certificate. The court held that since the defendants failed to raise the valuation plea in their written statement, they cannot now contend lack of pecuniary jurisdiction at the stage of final hearing. The writ petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected without granting the prayer to recall the witness or produce additional documents.

Girijadevi W/O Shivanand Dandin Vs Mallappa S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 107088 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

GIRIJADEVI W/O SHIVANAND DANDIN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. HOME MANAGEMENT R/O SHIVANAND SILK HOUSE JAVALI BAZAR, GADAG 582101

¶7

UMADEVI W/O SHANKREPPA DANDIN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶8

OCC. HOME MANAGEMENT R/O SHIVANAD HONDA, OLD DC OFFICE OPP. SHIVANAND MOTORS FORCE COMPANY, NEAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE MUNDARAGI ROAD, GADAG.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. S G KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MALLAPPA S/O VEERAPPA HALAKATTI AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED R/O JOSHI FARM M.G.BNAK, BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD-580008

¶13

VIJAYAKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA HALAKATTI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR, R/O JOSHI FARM M.G.BNAK, BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD-580008

¶14

PRABHU S/O MALLAPPA HALAKATTI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE R/O JOSHI FARM, M.G.BNAK, BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD 580008

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED. 02-112023 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GADAG, ON I.A NO. XIV AND XV IN O.S. NO. 52/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-J BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the defendants seeking prayer to quash the order dated 02.11.2023 passed on Interlocutory Applications No.14 and 15 filed by the petitioners/defendants in O.S.No.52/2016, wherein, the application seeking to reopen the matter and to recall D.W.1 for further examination and to produce additional documents came to be rejected.

¶22

The respondents herein have filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the defendants have filed an application seeking to re-open the matter, to recall

¶23

D.W.1 for further examination-in-chief and to mark additional documents which are intended to be produced

¶24

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶25

along with I.A.No.15. In support of the I.As., the petitioners have contended that, during the pendency of the suit, they have obtained certified copy of the guidance value from the jurisdictional Sub-registrar Office, Gadag and the said document they could not produce along with the written statement, hence, it is necessary to recall D.W.1 and permit him to lead further evidence by marking guidance value certificate obtained from the Sub-registrar.

¶26

It is contended that, the plaintiffs have not produced any certificate to substantiate the market value of the suit schedule property and they have assessed the market value of the suit property at Rs.2,000/- per square feet, however, as per the guidance value certificate, the market value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.80,00,000/-. Hence, trial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiffs, contending that, the plaintiffs have paid proper Court Fees on the suit by correctly valuating the market value of the

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶28

suit schedule property. It is further contended that, the petitioners have filed similar applications on earlier occasions, raising the contention that the plaintiffs have not paid proper Court Fees as per the market value of the suit property in the suit and the same came to be dismissed with costs. They sought rejection of applications.

¶29

The trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.11.2023 has dismissed I.A.Nos.14 and 15 filed by the petitioner-defendant with a cost of Rs.2,000/- on each application payable to the defendants therein.

¶30

Sri. S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendants submits that, during the pendency of the suit, the defendants have secured guidance value certificate from the Senior Sub-registrar, Gadag, which indicate that the market value of the suit schedule property is more than Rs.80,00,000/-. Hence, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the value of the property is more than the pecuniary

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶32

jurisdiction conferred on the said Court. It is submitted that, if I.A.Nos.14 and 15 are not allowed, it would cause prejudice to the defendants. It is submitted that, the Civil Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit in question. Hence, it is just and proper to allow the application by permitting the defendant No.1 to adduce further evidence and to produce guidance value certificate as additional document. He seeks to allow the writ petition, permitting the petitioners to adduce further evidence and permitting him to mark additional two documents in the pending suit.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Respondents herein have filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. In the said suit, the petitioners have filed a written statement denying the contents of the suit, admittedly, the petitioners have not raised any issue with regard to market value of the property in the written

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶36

statement. The material on record clearly indicates that, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.9 under Order VII Rule 11B of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint on the ground that, the plaintiffs have failed to pay Court fee on the market value of the suit schedule property. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on 16.07.2021.

¶37

The petitioner has filed I.A.No.10 under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, seeking to frame additional issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court which also came to be dismissed on 22.06.2023. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.11 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, seeking permission to amend the written statement by incorporating the averment that, the market value of the suit schedule property as on the date of presenting of the plaint was more than Rs.80,00,000/- and the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the said suit. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court, being aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No.103752/2021. This Court has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order of the trial Court.

¶38

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶39

Thereafter, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.12 under Section 18 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, seeking for appointment of Court Commissioner to ascertain the market value of the suit schedule property. The said application also came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 15.03.2023. The petitioner has assailed the said

¶40

order in W.P.No.104664/2023 and this Court vide order dated 11.08.2023 has dismissed the writ petition.

¶41

When the things stood thus, the petitioners who are the defendants in the suit have made one or the other attempt before the Civil Court to create obstruction from proceeding with the suit on its merits. The present applications i.e. I.A.Nos.14 and 15 were admittedly filed by the defendants when the matter was posted for final hearing. Admittedly, the defendants in the written statement have not raised any plea with regard to valuation or payment of Court Fees. In the absence of any

¶42

such pleadings in the written statement, it is not permissible for the petitioner, now to contend that, the

¶43

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14437 WP No. 107088 of 2023

¶44

petitioner intend to produce the guidance value certificate issued by the Senior Sub-registrar, Gadag as additional documents by way of further examination-in-chief of D.W.1. In the absence of any pleading or the averments in the written statement, the present applications filed by the petitioners are misconceived. The earlier attempts made by the petitioners with regard to the valuation of the property, payment of Court fees and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been negated by the trial Court. This Court is of the considered view that, the trial Court considering the aforesaid facts, has rightly rejected I.A.Nos.14 and 15.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid reason, this Court does not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court, calling for interference in the present petition.

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SVH

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Girijadevi W/O Shivanand Dandin v. Mallappa S/O Veerappa Halakatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijadevi W/O Shivanand Dandin v. Mallappa S/O Veerappa Halakatti

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

Smt.Durgamma W/O. Irappa Naik Vs Bibi Shaharbanu W/O. Shabandri Hasan Kojapo

Shri. Donnepudi Subhaschandra Bose Vs Smt. Hemalatha W/O Late Basavaraj Venkatapur

Ms Horanabi Vs Mr.Dadesab

Dr Vikram S/O Anil Hegde Vs Dr Girija Kokila Hegde

Syed Maqdoom Hussain S/O. Syed Chand Peera Vs Shameedsab S/O.Martujasab Nadagouda

Abdulkhadar S/O Sadroddin Hundekar Vs Venkappa S/O Laxmappa Kalakeri