ORDER
1. This revision petition is filed challenging the orders passed on Issue No. 7, dated 9-4-1999 in O.S. No. 418 of 1994.
2. The 1st petitioner, a Public Trust, was constituted in the year 1924. Petitioners 2 to 11 are Honorary Trustees duly appointed by the learned District Judge, Mysore, in terms of the scheme framed in O.S. No. 12 of 1979. The suit schedule property was the trust property. The same was managed by one Sri M.S. Madappa (original trustee). Subsequent to his death, his son the 1st defendant has sold by the trust or property to one Mallikarjunappa. The respondents 2 to 5 are the legal heirs of Mallikarjunappa. They, in turn, have mortgaged the same to respondent 6-a tenant.
3. Petitioners filed on O.S. No. 418 of 1994 seeking for various reliefs, including the relief of declaration, declaring that the sale deed dated 31-10-1971 executed by defendant 1 in favour of late Mallikarjunappa, husband of defendant 2 and father of defendants 3 to 5, as null and void and the same does not bind on the plaintiff-trust. The petitioners also sought for possession of the same, since they said that the said property belongs to the trust. Several issues have been framed and Issue No. 7 is with regard to Court fee. The said issue reads as under:
'Issue No. 7.--Is the Court fee paid is sufficient?'
4. After hearing, the learned Judge was of the view that the Court fee paid is insufficient. According to the Trial Court, Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('Act' for short), is applicable, and not Section 27 as contended by the petitioners. The Trial Court also relied on a judgment of this Court in Venkataramanappa vSundaramma. In conclusion, the Trial Court answered Issue No. 7 holding that the petitioners have to pay a deficit Court fee in terms of Section 24(a) of the Act.
5. Mr. Yoganarasimha, learned Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to Sections 24 and 27 of the Act, and contended that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that Section 24 is applicable. He also argued that there is already a decision in O.S. No. 12 of 1979 with regard to schedule property. According to him, the District. Court in its judgment dated 16-1-1993 has categorically stated that the schedule property belongs to said trust. In fact, the same has been mentioned in para 7 of the plaint. Without considering this aspect of the matter, according to him, the Trial Judge has rejected his application.
6. In the light of the submissions of the learned Counsel, I have seen the order on Issue No. 7. The Trial Judge has stated that, a reading of the relief of declaration of title etc., would show that, Section 24 of the Act is the section which will be applicable to the facts of this case, rather than Section 27 of the Act. To find the correctness of the order, one has to look into Section 24 and also Section 27 of the Act. They read as under:
'24. Suits for declaration.--In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25.-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees (one thousand) whichever is higher;
(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher;
(c) (xxx);
(d) in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher.
xxx xxx xxx
27. Suits relating to trust property.--In a suit for possession or joint possession of trust property or for a declaratory decree, whether with or without consequential relief in respect of it, between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and a person who has ceased to be trustee, fee shall be computed on one-fifth of the market value of the propertysubject to a maximum fee of rupees two hundred or where the property has no market value on rupees one thousand:
Provided that, where the property does not have a market value, value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts shall be such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint'.
7. Section 24 deals with suits for declaration and any suit for a decree or order with or without consequential reliefs, not falling under Section 25, the Court fee payable is on the basis of the market value of the property. Section 27 specifically deals with rules relating to trust property. The special proviso provides for a lesser Court fee taking into consideration the object of saving the trust property. A careful reading of Section 27 would show that, in a suit relating to trust property for possession or joint possession and for a declaratory decree between trustees or rival claimants to the office of trustee or between a trustee and a person who ceased to be trustee, the fee shall be computed on one-fifth of the market value of the property, subject to a maximum fee of rupees two hundred or where the property has no market value on rupees one thousand. In the case on hand, as I see from the materials on record, the property in question has already been declared to be a trust property in the earlier proceedings. The respondents have nowhere stated that this is not a trust property. On the other hand, the Trial Judge relies on Section 24 of the Act for the purpose of Court fee in the light of the relief for declaration of title. While so doing, in my opinion, the learned Trial Judge has missed the point of the property being a trust property as concluded in the earlier proceedings. A subsequent declaration of a trust property by way of subsequent relief of declaration of trust property, together with possession, has to be valued only on the basis of Section 27 of the Act. Section 24 is a general provision and Section 27 is a special provision dealing with the trust property. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Judge that the Court fee paid on account of declaration in terms of Section 24, is unsustainable in law. Once it is said that the issues relating to trust property with regard to possession and declaration are decided, the Court fee payable is governed only by Section 27 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order, in my opinion, requires to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge has committed an error in answering Issue No. 7 against the petitioners. The petitioners have paid the exact Court fee in terms of Section 27, and therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioners in the matter of Court fee.
8. The Trial Judge has relied on the judgment of this Court in 1975(1) Kar. L.J. 26 (sic). A reading of the facts of this case would show that, it was not a case where a suit was admittedly with regard to trust property as in the present case. There a specific prayer for declaration made with regard to the factum of the suit property belonging to temple and possession of the properties was required to be handed over to a temple. In view of the disputed questions with regard to the property belonging to a temple, this Court rightly held that Section 24 is applicable. Since, in the present case, in the light of the plaint averments, the propertybelonged to trust property as held by the District Judge in the earlier proceedings, the said judgment is wholly inapplicable to the facts of the present case. If Court fee is to be paid in terms of Section 24, the very object of providing a special provision with lesser Court fee would be defeated. The trust property has to be saved in the light of the intention of the creator of the trust. If Court fee on the market value is to be paid, the very object of providing a special provision of Court fee relating to trust property is defeated. Taking into consideration the object of special provision on the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Court fee has been rightly paid as per Section 27 of the Act. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and Issue No. 7 is answered in favour of the petitioners.
9. In conclusion, this civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is held that the Court fee paid by the petitioners is sufficient on the facts of this case. No costs.