Mr. Manish Rao and Others vs M/s. Raghava Reddy and Associates, Mr. K. Raghava Reddy, Mr. K.R. Kumara Reddy and Mr. K.R. Jayachandra Reddy

H.N. Nagamohan Das

In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.10.2012 in O.S. No. 5906/2009 allowing I.A. 2 filed u/s 11 read with Section 6, 7(2), 24(a) and 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (for short ''the Act'') and Order 7 Rule 11(c) CPC. Petitioners are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants before the trial Court. In this order, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court.

Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 5906/2009 against the defendants for the following reliefs:

(a) Declare that the Plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the property bearing no. 8/1, Vasanthanagar Main Road, Bangalore and referred to as the Suit Schedule Property.

(b) Set aside and cancel the sale deed dated 28.09.2007 executed by the defendants, claiming to be power of attorney holders of the ''Plaintiffs'' family members, in favour of the first defendant;

(c) Direct the office of this Hon''ble Court to send a copy of the decree to the office of the jurisdictional sub-registrar with a direction to the jurisdictional sub-registrar to note the fact of cancellation on the copy of the sale deed contained in his books;

(d) Direct the Defendants by way of a mandatory injunction to deliver and hand over all the original documents pertaining to the Suit Schedule Property, to the Plaintiffs;.

(e) Direct the Defendants to hand over possession of the Suite Schedule Property to the Plaintiffs;

(f) Permanently restrain the Defendants from in any manner dealing with or interfering with the Suit Schedule Property or the Plaintiffs'' possession thereof;

(g) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be just and necessary including costs of the suit.

Defendants entered appearance before the trial Court, filed written statement and also I.A. 2 to direct the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court fee. On I.A. 2 both the parties adduced evidence and produced certain documents. The trial Court by considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned order directing the plaintiffs to pay deficit court fee on prayer-(b). Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the impugned order are before this court in this writ petition.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

Prayer (a) and (e) relates to declaration of title and recovery of possession of plaint schedule immovable property. Therefore prayer (a) and (e) falls u/s 24(a) of the Act. The trial Court concluded that valuation of the suit property at Rs. 1,80,14,400/- on prayer (a) and (e) as correct. Defendants have not questioned the same. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on the question of valuation of the market value of the suit property at Rs. 1,80,14,400/- had become final and both the parties have no grievance over it. Prayer (b) in the plaint relates to cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 28.09.2007. The relief of cancellation of a sale deed falls u/s 38 of the Act. Prayer (b) is not a consequential relief to prayer (a) for declaration of title. Prayer (b) for cancellation of sale deed is a separate and distinct prayer from other prayers in the suit. Even without seeking declaration of title, plaintiffs are entitled to initiate proceedings against the defendants for simple relief to declare sale deed as null and void. Therefore the finding of the trial Court that prayer(b) is separate and distinct from other prayers in the suit is in accordance with law. It is on this prayer(b) for cancellation of the sale deed the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit property. This conclusion of the trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case is in accordance with law and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, petitioners/plaintiffs are granted three months'' time to pay the deficit court fee. Ordered accordingly.