Smt. Vattikoti Kantamma Vs. T. Suryanarayana and ors. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/378487 |
| Subject | Civil;Property |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Apr-08-2004 |
| Case Number | Regular First Appeal No. 1110 of 2003 |
| Judge | K. Sreedhar Rao, J. |
| Reported in | ILR2004KAR3350; 2004(4)KarLJ257 |
| Acts | Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Sections 7, 7(2), 8, 24 and 50(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 |
| Appellant | Smt. Vattikoti Kantamma |
| Respondent | T. Suryanarayana and ors. |
| Appellant Advocate | L.M. Chidanandayya, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | T.M. Manjula, Adv. for ;F.V. Patil, Adv. for Respondents -1 to 4, 6, 8 and 10 |
Excerpt:
.....paid on the basis of 25 times the value of the land revenue under section 7(ii) for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit is to be valued on the basis of actual market value under section 50 of the act.;order of trial court set aside. - karnataka rent act, 1999.[k.a. no. 34/2001]. section 3(n): [d.v. shylendra kumar, j] tenant - held, there is distinction between the definition of tenant under the 1961 act and the definition of tenant under the 1999 act. under the 1961 act while the legal heirs of the deceased tenant themselves become tenant and are entitled for the protection provided under the 1999 act, under the 1999 act, the legal heirs or the mere relatives of the tenants who were living with the tenants at the time of his death do not become tenants by themselves. it is..........of court fee and jurisdiction is impermissible and the court fee is to be paid on the basis of the pecuniary jurisdictional values stated in the plaint, accordingly, directed the payment of deficit court fee on or before 17-9-2003 and also directed that if court fee is not paid, the plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff.3. i find the order is faulty for more than one reason. the non-payment of deficit court fee within the time prescribed under order 7, rule 11 of the cpc, would entail rejection of plaint. the order of return is improper.4. on the agricultural lands under section 7 of the karnataka court fees and suits valuation act, the court fee has to be paid on the basis of the twenty-five times the value of the land revenue. however, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the.....
Judgment:K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangavathi passed the impugned order. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title in respect of agricultural land in Sy. No. 192, measuring 20 acres 29 guntas situated at Hanawal Village with a consequential relief of injunction against the defendants. The suit is for the purpose of jurisdiction valued at Rs. 10 lakhs and for the purpose of Courts fee valued at Rs. 1,000/-.
2. The Trial Court takes the view that the different valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is impermissible and the Court fee is to be paid on the basis of the pecuniary jurisdictional values stated in the plaint, Accordingly, directed the payment of deficit Court fee on or before 17-9-2003 and also directed that if Court fee is not paid, the plaint is to be returned to the plaintiff.
3. I find the order is faulty for more than one reason. The non-payment of deficit Court fee within the time prescribed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC, would entail rejection of plaint. The order of return is improper.
4. On the agricultural lands under Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the Court fee has to be paid on the basis of the twenty-five times the value of the land revenue. However, for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit is to be valued on the basis of actual market value under Section 50 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. In the case of urban property perhaps the distinction between the valuation for the purpose of Court fee and for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction may not arise, but in the case of agricultural lands, the law maintains a clear distinction. Therefore, the view taken by the Trial Court that the Court fee is to be paid on the basis of value stated for pecuniary jurisdiction is incorrect and illegal. Accordingly, the order of the Trial Court is set aside. The matter is remanded for disposal in accordance with law.