Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2008Kant102; ILR2008KAR1420; 2008(4)KarLJ177; 2008(2)KCCR886; 2008(3)AIRKarR62; AIR2008Kar102(DB)
S.R. Bannurmath, J.1. In this appeal, Scrutiny Branch has raised objection regarding deficiency of Court-fee paid by the appellant on the memorandum of appeal and as the appellant took exception to the objections, the matter was placed before the Court.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record.3. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to note the brief facts giving rise to the present appeal.4. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the O.S. No. 5085/2001 against the respondents for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties, on the ground that the properties were self acquired properties of her deceased father Shri Bachappa. It was contended that said Shri Bachappa died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff along with three sisters and two brothers. It was contended that as there was no partition and inspite of repeated requests and demand, the brothers have denied the share and she is forced to file the suit. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2004KAR3350; 2004(4)KarLJ257
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant338; ILR2003KAR1724
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. The complaint in this case is that the doors of Temple of justice is closed to the poor agriculturists courtesy Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1958 under Section 7(2)(d).2. The facts in W.P. No. 38076/1992 are as under :Mahadev Narayan Naik is in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No. 22/1 for more than 50 years. The said land belongs to Hanumanth Tippayya Naik and his family. Adverse possession is claimed. The 2nd respondent Hanumanth Tippayya Naik obstructed the enjoyment of the suit lands and hence the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for in O.S. No. 47/90. The petitioner has paid the Court-fee in terms of Section 7(2)(a). The respondent-defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. They raised an issue with regard to Court-fee in terms of Section 7(2)(d) and not in terms of Section 7(2)(a). The Trial Judge accepted the contention of the defendant. An unsuccessful petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner. In the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR60
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a Judgment and Decree passed by the I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 4164/1986, which happened to be a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession. One of the issues that the Trial Court framed on the basis of the pleadings before it related to the sufficiency of the Court Fee paid on the plaint filed by the appellant. While dismissing the suit on merits, the Trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient and that the plaintiff is liable to pay the same on the market value of the suit property, which value was held to be at Rs. 65/- per sq. ft.2. In the present appeal filed against the said Judgment and Decree, the Office has raised two folded objections. The first objection relates to the non-filing of the certified copy of the decree sheet of the Trial Court, while the second objection relates to the non-payment of Court fee on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2008(1)KarLJ1; 2007(4)KCCR2616(DB);
ORDERS.R. Bannurmath and A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and award of the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) at Gulbarga, ('reference Court' for short), dated 28.2.2007, passed in LAC Nos. 468 and 469 of 1994.2. The appellant has paid the Court fee of Rs. 15/- under Article 3 (iii)(1)(a) of Schedule II of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act' for short). The office has raised objection regarding the insufficiency of Court fee paid. According to the office objection, the Court fee has to be paid under Section 48 r/w Article 1 of Schedule I of the Act. The appellant has submitted before the office that, the matter involved in the appeal being limited to the rejection of reference by the Court and the appeal being not for seeking any enhancement of compensation, Section 48 has no application. On the said objection, the matter is listed for hearing.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the refere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1989KAR1294
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. Court fee liable to be paid in this appeal by the appellants, arises for our decision.2. The appellants here had filed a petition, P & SC No. 1/1984, in the Court of District Judge at Hassan ('the District Court'), impleading the respondent here as the respondent therein. That was a petition for grant of probate or letters of administration with the Will annexed purporting to have been filed under Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act'), while it has to be regarded as a petition filed under Section 276 of the Act. The respondent in that petition contested the grant of prayer therein by filing his statement of objections thereto. Because of the contest (contention), the District Court treated the petition as a contentions case and decided it conforming to the requirement of Section 295 of the Act, which reads:'295. Procedure in contentious cases -In any case before the District Judge in which there is contention, the proceedings shall take, as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR841; 1996(2)KarLJ153
ORDERKrishna Moorthy, J.1. This is a Revision by the plaintiff against an order of the Court below directing him to pay Court fee on an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs which is the sale consideration amount fixed in the Agreement of Sale.2. The suit is for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.1990 which included certain immovable property and various other related assets. According to the plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 entered into an Agreement for a total consideration of Rs.14 lakhs and that he was also put in possession of the property on the date of the Agreement. According to the allegations in the plaint, the Agreement has been complied with in respect of two properties in Sy.No. 100/2 and in Sy.No. 116/1 by respective defendants executing Sale Deeds in favour of the plaintiff. Present suit is for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 14.05.1990 in respect of the schedule property in respect of which the Sale Deed has not been executed and also to direct t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2000Kant340; ILR2000KAR2246; 2000(5)KarLJ347
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2-4-1998 in R.A. No. 11 of 1997 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Madikeri, in passing whereof, the learned District Judge while allowing the appeal of the respondent 1 had set aside the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1997 on Issue No. 5 in O.S. No. 58 of 1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Madikeri, directing the respondent 1 to value the suit under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act') and further directed him to pay the deficit Court fee and further answered the Issue No. 5 in favour of the respondents 1 to 3 and also reversed the order dated 22-9-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the plaint under Order 7, Rule 1Kb) of the Civil Procedure Code by remitting the matter to him to dispose of the suit in accordance with law on other issues framed by him.2. The appellant herein is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR2385; 1985(2)KarLJ457
ORDERVenkatachala, J.1. If a suit is dismissed by a Court before recording evidence on the merits of the claim therein, accepting the report of the suitor that that suit had been settled out of Court by agreement of parties, can it refuse to the suitor refund of half the amount of fees sought under Section 66 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('the Act'), on the ground that the agreement of parties relating to settlement so reported had not been established, is a matter whichneeds to be decided upon in this Revision Petition.2. The petitioner here, a suitor, instituted in the Court below, a suit against the defendant therein claming from him certain money. Fee payable under the Act respecting that claim in the suit, had been paid However, beforerecording the evidence on merits of the claim in the suit, the suitor having reported to the Court below that the suit was settled out of Court by agreement of parties, sought from it,dismissal of that suit as settled out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant36; ILR2000KAR3063; 2001(2)KarLJ188
ORDERChidananda Ullal, J.1. In the above writ petitions and series of other writ petitions, the Co-operative Banks and Societies have challenged Section 57(2-a) and Section 29-G(6) of the Co-operative Societies Act on the ground that the same were arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.2. When the matter was resting at that, there arose a controversy before me when the Counsel for the petitioner on record Sri K.M. Nataraj had orally sought for permission to engage the services of another Advocate, Sri A.G. Holla (as he then was) to argue the matter on his behalf. Such a situation in fact arose before me time and again in some other matters too and as I was of the considered view that such a permission were to be granted only in the event a case is made out within the meaning of Rule 3 of Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959(henceforth referred to as the 'High Court Rules') and further that in the absence of that, an Advocate not on record would be acting as a Senior Advocate designated by...
Tag this Judgment!