Allowed

Sri. Krishnappa v. Sri. S. Prabhu

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/14272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a trial court order directing payment of deficit court fee, holding that the trial court failed to apply its mind, ignored the plaint's reliefs, and violated natural justice by not hearing the plaintiff's arguments on the court fee application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 31.07.2021 set aside; trial court directed to consider application in accordance with law.

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Sri. S. Prabhu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14272 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. LATE MAHESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIKERE POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 060.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.C. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. S. PRABHU S/O. SHIVARUDRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.96, ULLALU GRAMA, ULLALU UPANAGARA POST, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560056.

¶13

SRI. GANAPATHI MANJUNATHA HEGADE S/O. MANJUNATHA HEGADE, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.78/A, ARUNODAYA APARTMENT, 4^TH CROSS, T.G. LAYOUT, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶14

SMT. ASHA HEGADE W/O. GANAPATHI MANJUNATHA HEGADE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.78/A, ARUNODAYA APARTMENT,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶16

4^TH CROSS, T.G. LAYOUT, ITTAMADU, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶17

SRI. DEVARAJ S/O. SRI. N. SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 2^ND FLOOR, RAMANNA BUILDING, 2^ND CROSS, VONOBHA COLONY, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶18

SRI. M.S. SRIKANTH S/O. M. SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.56, 2^ND CROSS, ITTAMADU, 3^RD BLOCK, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 085.

¶19

SRI. VIJAYA MAHADEVA KUMAR S/O. LATE K.B. MAHADEVA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.135, Y 17^TH C MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶20

SRI. HARISH. P.S. S/O. P. SREENIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 32-12A, MUKKIDIPETA, HINDUPURA-515 201, ANANTPURA DISTRICT, A.P.

¶21

SRI. E. VIDYASHREE D/O. LATE ILANGOVAN, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REP BY SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI (GRANDMOTHER) SRI. BALASUBRAMANIAN (UNCLE), R/AT SHRI SHAKTI NIVAS, NO.22, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, SUBBANNA GARDEN, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶23

SMT. MADHUMATHY. K., W/O. KUMAR.C, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 89, 16^TH MAIN, ITI LAYOUT, MALATHALLI, BANGALORE-560 056.

¶24

SRI. C. KUMAR S/O. V.D. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.89, 16^TH MAIN ITI LAYOUT, MALATHALLI, BANGALORE-560 056.

¶25

SRI. NARAYANA. V. BHAT S/O. VENKATRAMAN BHAT, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, KRISHNA ANUSHAKTI APARTMENT, AMD, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 071.

¶26

SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O. SRI. M. PUTTANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 629, GODAVARI NAGAR, PIPELINE ROAD, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050.

¶27

SMT. VANAJAKSHI W/O. SRI. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO. 33/A, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, BAPUJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 026.

¶28

SMT. SHEELA W/O NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.134/1, 1^ST MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶30

SRI. N. RAJU S/O. LATE H.N. NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.1021/17, 11^TH MAIN, R.P.C. LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶31

SRI. K. SUHAS S/O. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, "MATRU KRUPA", 3^RD B MAIN, BYRAVESHWARA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE-560 072.

¶32

SRI. B.N. VINOD KUMAR S/O. NAGARAJ. B, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. NO.10, 9^TH CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. NAGABHUSHANA S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.14 AND 16;

¶35

SRI. MAHESH B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.15;

¶36

SRI. ADARSH JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.9, 10 AND 13;

¶37

SRI. THIMANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. RAMESH ADITYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 8; SRI. B.S.GURUDATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.12;

¶38

SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 14 IN TRIAL COURT (VAKALAT NOT FILED)

¶39

SRI JANEKERE C. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.17 IN TRIAL COURT (VAKALAT NOT FILED);

¶40

VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09.2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.11 IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND PLACED EX PARTE;

¶41

SRI. MOOVENDAN R., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.17)

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶43

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.360/2013 PENDING BEFORE THE 4^TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AND AFTER PERUSAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2021 PASSED BY THE 4^TH ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.360/2013 ON I.A. NO.6 (ANNEXURE-A) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

¶44

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

The plaintiff in O.S. No.360/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) has filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 31.07.2021 by which the Trial Court allowed I.A. No.VI filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 12 and directed the plaintiff to pay deficit Court fee by valuing the suit property at a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- under Section 7(2)(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (for short, ‘the Act, 1958’).

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶50

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they

¶51

were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner was the plaintiff while the respondents herein were defendant Nos.2 to 18 before the Trial Court.

¶52

The suit in O.S. No.360/2013 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶53

“a. Declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in respect of suit schedule property; and

¶54

b. Declare that the GPA dated 03.02.2011 alleged to have executed by the Plaintiff in favour of 1^st Defendant is a null and void; and

¶55

c. Declare that the Sale Deed dated 04.02.2011 executed by the 1^st Defendant in favour of the 2^nd Defendant in respect of schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff and

¶56

d. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents or any body acting on their behalf from in any way alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of third parties; and

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶59

e. Pass any order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶60

The defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 to 12 contested the suit who claimed that the Court fee paid on the suit was not adequate. Later, the defendant Nos.3 to 12 filed an application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, 1958 to direct the plaintiff to make good the deficit court fee.

¶61

The suit was listed on 27.07.2021 for amendment

¶62

of the cause title and to file amended plaint. On the said day, the amendment was carried out and an amended plaint was ordered to be filed on 05.08.2021. The Trial Court scored off the above in the order sheet and later recorded that there was no representation for the plaintiff and the case was adjourned to 29.07.2021. On 29.07.2021, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC while the defendant No.18 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and another application under Section 151 of CPC. The Trial Court posted the case for objections to all the interlocutory applications and for written statement of the defendant Nos.15 to 18 by 30.07.2021. On 30.07.2021, the Trial Court

¶63

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶65

purportedly heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the application filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 12 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, 1958 and the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC by the defendant Nos.3 to 18 and the application filed by plaintiff under the same provisions and passed the order on the same day directing the plaintiff to furnish a fresh valuation slip and also pay deficit court fee on a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-.

¶66

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before

¶67

this Court.

¶68

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the order sheet shows that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to address arguments on the application filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 12 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act 1958. He contends that the order sheet also establishes that the Trial Court heard the application on the same day and also passed the impugned order on the same day and therefore, there was no application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Besides this, he contends that the valuation should be based on the reliefs sought for in the suit as well as on the

¶69

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶71

subject matter of the suit. He contends that the subject matter of the suit was an agricultural land and therefore, the valuation must have been accordingly decided and not on the basis of the contentions urged in the written statement.

¶72

Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting defendants contended that the defendants were entitled to raise the ground of insufficiency of Court fee under Section 11 of the Act, 1958 and accordingly, they had filed an application. They contended that the Trial Court was entitled to consider the sufficiency of the court fee paid before the issues were framed in the suit and therefore, the Trial Court considered the same and passed the impugned order. They submit that there is no error committed by the Trial Court in doing so warranting interference by this Court in this writ petition.

¶73

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶74

counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. I have also perused the documents enclosed with the writ petition including the plaint as well as the written statement and the order sheet of the Trial Court.

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶77

It is evident that the application filed by the defendant Nos.3 to 12 under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act, 1958 was filed on 17.11.2018. The suit was set down on 30.07.2021 for the purpose of hearing the applications filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.18 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and also to file the written statement and objections to the applications mentioned above. It is strange that the Trial Court did not consider the sufficiency of the Court fee from the perspective of the reliefs sought for in the suit, but proceeded on the assertion made by the defendant Nos.3 to 12 that the land in question was converted for non-agricultural use and that the value of the property was Rs.60,00,000/-. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there was really no application of mind to the contentions urged by the plaintiff and the contentions urged by the defendants. The Trial Court has passed a cryptic non-speaking order and therefore, on this short ground alone, the impugned order warrants interference. Hence, the following:

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶80

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:50501 WP No. 14272 of 2021

¶81

ii. The impugned order dated 31.07.2021 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on I.A. No.VI in O.S. No.360/2013 is set aside.

¶82

iii. The Trial Court is directed to consider the said application (I.A. No.VI) in accordance with law.

¶83

iv. It is needless to mention that the Trial Court while considering the application (I.A. No.VI) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 shall consider the averments made in the plaint as well as the property involved in the suit.

¶84

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶85

SMA

¶86

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Sri. Krishnappa v. Sri. S. Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnappa v. Sri. S. Prabhu

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

G Kunhiraman Vs Bodan Kajjodi

Sri. Muniyappa Since Dead by His Legal Representatives Smt. Rathnamma Vs Smt Ramakka Since Dead by Her Legal Representatives Smt. Gowramma

Smt Kanthamma Vs Muniraju

Smt.Indira Vs Sri Ramakrishna

Smt Fakru Bi Vs Smt Saidambi

Sri B S Vishwanatha Vs Sri P K Sham