Sri. B. v. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Sri. T. Krishna Reddy

1(d)(iii) KUM. A. VIDYA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS D/O LATE B.K. ANANTHA REDDY PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 1(d)(ii) AND 1(d)(iii) SINCE MINORS REP. THEIR MOTHER. ALL ARE R/OF. BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

¶27

1(e) SMT. B.K. DHANALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O K.S. UMESH D/O LATE T. KRISHNA REDDY R/AT. NO.2016, 21^ST 'B' CROSS 24^TH MAIN, II SECTOR H.S.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

SRI. T. THIMMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 95 YEARS S/O LATE KONI THIMMA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.125, 9TH CROSS BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 103.

¶31

SRI. JAYARAMA REDDY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.

¶32

SRI. B.J. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS S/O LATE T. JAYARAMA REDDY.

¶33

SRI. B.J. PAPAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE T. JAYARAMA REDDY. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.444 4TH CROSS, BELLANDUR VILLAGE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-562 103.

¶34

SRI. B.J. PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE T. JAYARAMA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.201, 6TH CROSS BELLANDUR VILLAGE MAIN ROAD BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE-562 103.

¶35

SMT. B.J. KOMALA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O LATE T. JAYARAMA REDDY W/O SRI. H.N. DEVARAJ RESIDING AT NO.134 10TH CROSS, BEGUR MAIN ROAD OPP: APR KALYANA MANTAP BANGALORE-560 068.

¶36

SMT. B.J. PADMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O LATE T. JAYARAMA REDDY W/O SRI. NAGABHUSHANA REDDY RESIDENT OF BOYANAHALLI

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. SRI. T. RAMA REDDY (DIED ON 05-07-2015 WITHOUT ANY OTHER HEIR). SMT. RAMAKKA (DIED ON 24-06-2013 LEAVING BEHIND PETITIONERS AS HER LRS).

¶40

SMT. SARASWATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA @ ABBAIAH REDDY W/O ASHWATHANARAYANA REDDY RESIDENT OF MUNNEKOLALA VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 037.

¶41

SMT. MEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA @ ABBAIAH REDDY W/O RAMALINGAPPA RESIDING AT NO.267, BELLANDUR MAIN ROAD VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 037.

¶42

SRI. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 566 YEARS HUSBAND OF KANTHAMMA D/O VENKATAPPA @ ABBAIAH REDDY.

¶43

SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O SMT. KANTHAMMA GRAND D/O VENKATAPPA @ ABBAIAH REDDY W/O SRI. DAMODHAR REDDY.

¶44

SRI. PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O SMT. KANTHAMMA GRAND S/O VENKATAPPA @ ABBAIAH REDDY.

¶45

SRI. SATISH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O SMT. KANTHAMMA GRAND S/O VENKATAPPA @ ABBAIAH REDDY.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT 2341, HAL III STAGE BANGALORE-560 017.

¶49

SMT. DHANALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY W/O SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.251 BOREWELL ROAD, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560 066.

¶50

SMT. GIRIJA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY W/O SRI. GANESH REDDY RESIDING AT NO.55 SEETHARAM PALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 48.

¶51

SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS D/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY W/O SRI. MUNIRAJA REDDY RESIDING AT NO.17/1, KATTHALI PALYA 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560 038.

¶52

SRI. KARUNESH PARTNER OF M/S. ADARSH DEVELOPERS NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI. ASHOK SESHAGIRI, ADV., FOR R1 (a) & R1 (c) V/O/DTD:19.07.2016 NOTICE TO R2 TO R17 ARE D/W

¶55

P R1(b) AND R1(e) AND R1(d)(i) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED R1(d)(ii) AND R1(d)(iii) ARE MINORS REP. BY R1(d)(i))

¶56

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 MADE IN O.S.1955/2011 BY THE HON'BLE V ADDL. ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, CCH-13 AT ANENX-G. ISSUE

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, CCH-5 TO DECIDE THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.7 FRAMED REGARDING THE COURT FEE AFTER FULLY RECORDING THE EVIDENCE OF DW-1 AND CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES & ETC.

¶60

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

¶61

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶62

ORAL ORDER

¶63

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

¶64

"i) To quash the order dated 03.06.2016 made in O.S.No.1955/2011 by the Hon'ble V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, CCH-13, as per Annexure-G.

¶65

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the Hon'ble City Civil Judge, Bangalore, CCH-5 to decide the preliminary issue No.7 framed regarding the Court Fee after fully recording the evidence of DW-1 and considering the pleadings and documents produced by the parties."

¶66

Sri.Anup Seetharam Rao, learned counsel

¶67

appearing for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property against the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein have filed a written statement raising

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

various contentions including the contention with regard to

¶71

the payment of court fees on the plaint and they requested the trial Court to treat and consider the issue with regard to the payment of court fees as a preliminary issue. The trial Court by cryptic order on 03.06.2016 rejected the said request and held that the said issue could be considered along with the other issues. It is submitted that the issue with regard to the court fees is required to be considered as preliminary issue as it goes to the jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

¶72

Per contra, Sri.Ashok Sheshagiri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1(a) and 1(c) supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the writ petition is liable to be rejected in view of the enunciation of law laid down by the full bench of this Court

¶73

in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai v. Pushpahosmani

¶74

and Others¹ . Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶75

1 ILR 2018 KAR 5095

¶76

8 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

I have heard the arguments of the learned

¶80

counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

¶81

Respondent No.1 - late T.Krishna Reddy filed O.S.No.1955/2011 against the petitioners herein and others seeking relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners filed a written statement. The trial Court framed the issues on 08.02.2012. The trial Court framed the following issue with regard to the court fees:

¶82

"7. Whether the court fee is paid sufficient?"

¶83

The petitioners/defendant Nos.6 to 9 requested

¶84

the trial Court to consider issue No.7 as the preliminary

¶85

issue and thereafter, take up the suit for consideration. The trial Court on 03.06.2016, posted the matter for

¶86

9 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

recording the evidence. In other words, the trial Court has decided to consider issue No.7 along with other issues. It would be useful to extract paragraph Nos.33 and 35 of the decision in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai referred

¶90

supra :

¶91

"33. In fact, the principles which we have indicated above had been applied, though without stating in specific terms, by the other Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nanjamma (supra), when it was held that the plaint averment, of the property being in joint possession, was sufficient to bring the valuation of the suit within the ambit of SECTION 35(2) of the Act of 1958; and taking of any evidence at the preliminary stage for the purpose of Court fees would be of no effect or consequence. The same principle was applied in the case of Renuka Manghnani (supra) too. The other decisions by the Learned Judges sitting singly, which have essentially been rendered by following the decision in Veeragouda's case, cannot be approved.

¶92

35. Accordingly, and in view of the above, we are clearly of the view that by virtue of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 195 8 read with Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when an issue of valuation and/or Court fees is raised in a civil suit on the objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues; but could be tried as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction and the Trial Court is of the view that the suit or any part thereof could be disposed of on its determination. The reference stands answered accordingly."

¶93

10 -

¶94

NC: 2025:KHC:24424 W.P. No.33777/2016

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law laid

¶97

down by the full Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the trial Court has fully justified in posting the matter for evidence of the parties and it has decided to consider issue No.7 along with the other issues. I do not find any error or perversity in the order of the trial Court in posting the matter for trial, calling for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.

¶98

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶99

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri. B. v. Ramachandra Reddy v Sri. T. Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. v. Ramachandra Reddy v Sri. T. Krishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. G.S. Rajappa Vs Smt. Rathnamma

Smt Muniyamma Vs T Venkatappa

Smt. Puttamma Vs the Central Bank of India

Sri Balakrishna K P Vs Sri K P Puttaraju

Kum Nanda Gouthami Vs Sri G Thimmappa

Sri Manmatha Vs Sri Ramaiah