Dismissed

Subhash Kumar Jain v. N Prakash

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/28329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A suit for specific performance of an agreement over agricultural land also sought a declaration that a later sale deed was not binding. The defendant sought a preliminary issue on court fee under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The High Court held the higher fee paid under Section 40 satisfied Section 9's highest-fee rule and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.10 filed by defendant No.13 rejected in its entirety; no case made to value suit under Section 38.

Subhash Kumar Jain Vs N Prakash — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 28329 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUBHASH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE MANIKCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.1872, VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VAGEESH N., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

N. PRAKASH S/O. GANACHARI LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT J.C.EXTENSION, VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶13

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135.

¶15

MURTHY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,

¶16

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. GAYATHRI W/O.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

¶19

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶21

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶22

KUMARI MANJULA D/O GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶23

KUMARI RASHMI D/O GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶24

ANANDA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. THRIVENI W/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶26

MASTER YASHWANTH S/O ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,

¶27

MASTER TILAK S/O ANADNA,

¶28

AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

¶29

RESPONDENT NOS.11 AND 12 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND FATHER ANANDA

¶30

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶31

ALL ARE RESIDING AT WARD NO.8, RAMAMANDIRA STREET, VIJAYAPRUA, VIJAYPURA TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. H.S.RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶34

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶35

SRI. KARTHIK P.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10 AND 13;

¶36

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.02;

¶37

RESPONDENT NO.11 AND 12 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.9)

¶38

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, PASSED ON I.A.NO.10 IN O.S.NO.371/2016, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-O AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The defendant No.13 in O.S. No.371/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 25.06.2018 by which, an application (I.A.No.10) filed under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act' for short) read with Order XIV Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code was allowed-in-part.

¶42

The suit in O.S.No.371/2016 was filed for the following reliefs:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶45

"a) To pass a Judgment and decree directing the defendant No.1 to 12 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff in terms of the Registered Sale Agreement dated: 19.11.2011, Vide Document No.DNH-104581/2011-12, Stored in CD No.245, Registered in the office of the SubRegistrar, Devanahalli, Bangalore by receiving the remaining balance of sale consideration or alternatively this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order to execute the sale deed through court in favour of the plaintiff herein in respect of the schedule property;

¶46

b) To declare the alleged sale deed dated 2.5.2016 said to be executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.13 vide Document No.DNH-100910/2016-17, Stored in CD No.594, Registered in the office of the SubRegistrar, Devanahalli, Bangalore Rural District is not binding on the plaintiff.

¶47

c) To restrain the defendant No.13 from alienating the suit Schedule Property or

¶48

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶49

creating a charge on it pending disposal of the above suit;

¶50

d) To pass such other suitable orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances.

¶51

e) To award the cost of the suit."

¶52

The suit was contested by the defendant No.13. He later filed an application under Section 11 of the Act read with Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code to frame an additional issue regarding the payment of Court Fee by the plaintiff and to try the said issue as a preliminary issue.

¶53

This application was contested by the plaintiff who contended that the suit property was an agricultural land. He contended that the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.11.2011 and for consequential relief of declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No.13 did not

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶55

bind him. He contended that the valuation of the suit was just and proper.

¶56

The Trial Court in terms of its impugned order allowed the application in-part without specifying the relief that was granted to the defendant No.13.

¶57

Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.13 has filed this writ petition.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioner/ defendant No.13 contended that the suit was filed not only for the relief of specific performance, but also for the relief of setting aside the sale deed executed in his favour. Therefore, both the reliefs needs to be separately valued. He contended that the suit for the relief of setting aside the sale deed had to be valued under Section 38 of the Act and separate Court Fee ought to have been paid. Hence, he contends that an issue ought to have been framed by the Trial Court and it must have tried it as a preliminary issue.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶61

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

¶62

plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein contended that the suit property is an agricultural land. The Court Fee for the relief of specific performance was paid under Section 40 of the Act and as the suit property is an agricultural land, the market value for the purpose of Section 38 of the Act had to be determined in the manner provided under Section 7 of the Act. She contends that in view of Section 9 of the Act, highest of the Court fee had to be paid and that the plaintiff had accordingly done so and therefore there was no error. She contends that the Trial Court had noticed this fact and had specifically held that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper and sufficient. However, the Trial Court allowed the application in-part without specifying the relief that was granted to the defendant No.13.

¶63

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶64

learned counsel for the defendant No.13 and learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶65

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶66

A perusal of the application filed by the defendant No.13 goes to show that the defendant No.13 prayed that an additional issue regarding the payment of court fee payable by the plaintiff be framed and to try it as a preliminary issue. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the defendant No.13 reiterated his contention and claimed that the plaintiff had sought for setting aside the sale deed dated 02.05.2016 and therefore, the Court Fee ought to have been paid under Section 38 of the Act.

¶67

It is relevant to note that the land in question is an agricultural land and the plaintiff claimed to have purchased it from the defendant Nos.1 to 12. Therefore, when the plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and also for setting aside the sale deed executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 12 in favour of defendant No.13, the suit ought to have been valued under Section 40 as well as under Section 38 of the Act. As the suit property is an agricultural land, the market value of the property has to be determined in the manner provided under Section 7 of

¶68

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9050 WP No. 28329 of 2018

¶69

the Act. If that is taken into account, then the court fee payable for the relief of specific performance is higher than the court fee payable for the relief of setting aside the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.13. Therefore, by applying Section 9 of the Act, the highest of the Court Fee had to be paid which in the present case is for the relief of specific performance and the plaintiff has rightly done so.

¶70

There is no error committed by the Trial Court in holding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is just and proper. However, it is strange that the Trial Court allowed the application in-part without indicating the relief granted to the plaintiff. As defendant No.13 has not made out a case to value the suit under Section 38 of the Act, no indulgence could be shown to the defendant No.13. Hence, I.A.No.10 filed by defendant No.13 is rejected in its entirety.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Subhash Kumar Jain v. N Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Kumar Jain v. N Prakash

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 Ashwath Narayana Vs Sri S Rajashekar

Smt. Vimala @ Akkamma Vs Smt.P. Pallavi

The Chief Engineer Construction - v Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Karnataka State Road Transport Vs R Venkatesh

M/S Enfrien Innovation LLP Vs the Food Corporation of India

Smt Aswathamma Vs Smt Gangamma @ Sunadamma