Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR4704; 2007(1)KarLJ468; ILR2006(4)Kar4704; 2007(1)KLJ468; 2007(3)KCCR1689; 2007(1)AIRKarR150
ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. This revision under Section 18 of the Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in S.C. No. 357/2003, dated 17-12-2003, returning the plaint for presentation before the proper court on the basis that Small Causes Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit as brought.2. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said order is in revision. In response to the notice in this revision the respondent has entered appearance.3. Factual matrix manifest from the records reveals;The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for a decree to eject the defendant from the schedule premises on the plea that after marriage between him and the defendant they resided together as husband and wife in the premises No. 56, 'KRISHNA NIVAS', 5TH Cross, 12th Matn, Raghavandra Block, Srinagar, Bangalore, which property he owns. The matrimony between them was not a smooth sail and it resulted in initiation of proceedin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1990KAR679; 1990(1)KarLJ270
ORDERMurlidher Rao, J.1. Both the petitions are directed against the order dated 29-10-1988 in O.S.No. 1131/82; by the said order the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, has directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee on Rs. One lakh, the value of the subject matter as stated in the plaint.2. C.R.P.No. 875/89 is filed by the Karnataka Board of Wakfs (hereinafter called as 'Board'), who is plaintiff in O.S.No. 1131/82. C.R.P. No. 5271/89 is filed by Joharmal Jawanji and Central Muslim Association, who are defendants in the said suit; while the plaintiff claims complete exemption from payment of Court fees, the defendants contended that the market value of the property, on the date of suit, is much more than Rs. One lakh. They contended that the Court below could not have accepted the valuation as given in plaint, but should have determined the market value, on the date of suit, after recording evidence.3. The property is described thus in the plaint Schedule:'Premises bearing Old Nos....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3622
ORDERKulkarni, J.1.This is an appellant's revision against the order dated 4-12-1982 passed by the District Judge, Gulbarga, in R.A. No. 17 of 1981 returning the appeal memo to the appellant for presentation in a proper Court.2. The respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 8 of 1979 on the file of the Civil Judge, Yadgir. The subject matter of the suit was for recovery of Rs. 16,560/-with future interest. The said suit was decreed. The defendant approached the District Judge with an appeal. The total amount recover-able under the decree would be Rs. 25,551-89P. Under Section 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the interest also will have to be included for the purpose of valuation to be made before the Appellate Court. Under Section 49 of the Act, the appellant will have to pay the court fee on the amount due under the decree till the date of filing of the appeal. Explanation (3) to Section 49 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, reads as - 'I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR957; 1987(1)KarLJ164
ORDERKulkarni, J.1. This is an unusual revision by the plaintiff against the decree dated 24-7-85 passed by the IV Additional City Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Bangalore in O.S. 1891/80 decreeing the suit against defendants 1 to 5 only.2. There was an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff executed by defendant No. 1 and others. In pursuance of that agreement, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 47,000/- as advance. Later on disputes appear to have arisen between the parties. The plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 47,000/- which he had given as advance to defendant No. 1 and others under the said agreement of sale.3. Defendants resisted the suit.4. In the meanwhile plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking an amendment of the plaint and thereby praying for the relief of specific performance. It was rejected by the trial Court. His revision to this Court failed. Thereafter, he filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking a further amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2003Kant366; IV(2004)BC510; [2004]118CompCas117(Kar); 2003(3)KarLJ415
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. In this revision under Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner (defendant 1) calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 19-8-2002 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Udupi in M.A. No. 23 of 2001 reversing the order dated 9-7-2001 in O.S. No. 248 of 1992 passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Udupi, produced as Annexure-A to the petition.2. The plaintiff initially filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant 1 from operating the safety locker No. 78 opened at Canara Bank, Town Branch, Udupi and later also included the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the articles in the locker with the defendant-Bank. The plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant, the petitioner herein. After marriage she stayed with her husband for three months and later due to differences among them she is staying separately. The safety locker is opene...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant384; ILR2001KAR3988; 2001(4)KarLJ431
ORDER1. The appellant herein filed a suit for partition and separate possession of one-fifth share in the plaint schedule properties and consequential reliefs in O.S. No. 41 of 1992, on the file of the Civil Judge, Bhadravati. The plaintiff valued the suit for partition for the purpose of jurisdiction as Rs. 15 lakhs and valued of his one-fifth share as Rs. 3 lakhs. Plaintiff claimed that he was in joint possession of the suit properties, and paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, the 'Act'). He also paid additional Court fee of Rs. 100.00 in regard to the consequential relief of permanent injunction under Section 26(c) of the Act. In para 9 of the plaint, the plaintiff averred thus:'.....The plaintiff used to visit the native place frequently and looked after the schedule properties and in joint possession of the said properties. Plaintiff is the joint owner of all the properties morefully described...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1993KAR3293; 1994(1)KarLJ577
M. Ramakrishna, J.1. The appellant who was the owner of land in R.S.No. 1627/2A to an extent of 2 acres 2.7 guntas situated in Athani, Belgaum District, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 5.9.1988 made by the learned Civil Judge, Athani, has approached this Court in this Appeal seeking higher compensation for the land acquired.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.3. The undisputed facts as disclosed by the judgment under Appeal are that by a Preliminary Notification dated 27.10.1975 published on 6th November, 1975, the land in question came to be acquired for a public purpose, to wit, construction of Government Quarters for Judicial Department. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per acre by his award dated 28.8.1981. Not being satisfied with the award, the appellant filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) for reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(5)KarLJ529
ORDER1. Heard.2. The petitioners are defendants in O.S. No. 14 of 1994 pending on the file of the Court below. They have challenged the Trial Court's order dated 3-8-1996 passed on the preliminary point respecting the valuation of the suit for the purpose of its pecuniary jurisdiction.3. The said O.S. No. 14 of 1994 was filed by the respondents against petitioners for the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in 6 items of suit property. Three of these items are agricultural lands and the remaining 3 were the items of house property. The valuation slip was filed by the plaintiff along with plaint giving necessary description of these items of property and valuing the suit under Section 35(2) read with Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act', for short) for the purpose of Court fee and the pecuniary jurisdiction as well at Rs. 200/- on the plaintiffs' alleged share, in addition to Rs. 450/- paid on their claim to Rs. 16,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR50; 2004(1)KarLJ207
ORDER1. R.F.A. No. 318 of 1991 was posted for orders on 27-5-1998 for filing of paper books as well as for furnishing fresh process fee and correct addresses for service of notices upon the respondents. At the request of the Counsel for the appellant, two weeks time was granted for that purpose. The appellant it appears did not do the needful with the result that the matter was posted again on 8-10-1998 for orders. On that day, this Court granted 4 weeks further time as prayed for by the appellant for taking steps failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed without any further reference to the bench. The appellant it appears did not comply with the said order also which being peremptory in nature, the failure resulted in the dismissal of the appeal A civil petition was thereafter filed by the appellant seeking recall of the dismissal order in which it was inter alia pointed out that the matter had been settled by the parties outside the Court and that the appellant was entitled to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2007(1)CHN39; JT2006(10)SC397; 2006(11)SCALE599; 2006AIRSCW6351; 2007(1)SCC694; 2007(2)KarLJ311; 2007(1)KCCR358
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant.3. Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalore, holding that Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act') was applicable and not Section 35(2) of the said Act in a suit for partition relating to agricultural land. Originally the suit was filed by the appellant's mother. She had filed the suit for partition of the scheduled property claiming that the same should be divided into two equal shares by meets and bounds through the process of Court. Plaintiff had filed suit under Section 7(2)(d) of the Act and paid court fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Act. Four defendants filed written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed written statement separately...
Tag this Judgment!