AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The first defendant in a suit filed for declaration and injunction is questioning the order of the first Appellate Court accepting the valuation and Court Fee paid by the plaintiff as correct.
The suit is one for declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, declaring the sale in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner. The plaintiff has paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 100/- u/s 24(c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
On the objection by the defendant, the trial Court considered that Section 24(b) alone is applicable and refusing to rely upon the case of AIR 1993 AP 225 , in the case of Karnataka Electricity Board Vs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., and in the case of Shantabai v. Manik Rao Panduranga Rao (1968) 2 Mys LJ 273 : (AIR 1969 Mys 255), held that Section 24(b) is applicable. Consequently the value of the property is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and directed to return to the proper Court.
The Appellate Court relying upon (1982) 1 Kar LJ 334 came to the conclusion that the suit has been properly valued and the Court, has jurisdiction and set aside the order of the Court below.
Heard the learned Counsel.
Section 24(a), (b) and (d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 reads as follows :
"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).
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".
6A. The question is whether the prayer of the suit is covered as per Section 24(d) or 24(b). The prayer in the plaint reads as follows :
"i) The plaintiff be declared as absolute owner of the suit property by quashing the order of the defendant No. 2 as null and void:
ii) The consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 1, her agents, servants, heirs or anybody acting on her behalf be granted from interfering the peaceful possession, enjoyment, title and interest of the plaintiff in suit property.
iii) The permission to amend the plaint as and when necessary may be granted.
iv) The cost of the suit be granted to the plaintiff.
To appreciate the prayer the averments in the plaint are to be noted. The second defendant is the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum, who acting under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act while considering the applications for mutation has chosen to pass an order whether the plaintiff is entitled to a half share or defendant is entitled to a half share as the grant is joint grant. Notwithstanding the fact that the grant is in the name of individual. It is seen that under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Assistant Commissioner has no power to declare a right to somebody and if he has got a doubt regarding the title he must refer the parties to a Court of law and he cannot embark upon the duties of the Civil Court. Prima facie, therefore, the order of the Commissioner is null and void.
If such an order is removed the plaintiffs absolute right automatically follows. Therefore, in a similar case in Basalingappa v. The Deputy Commr. (1982) 1 Kar LJ 334, was rightly relied upon by the trial Court. That was also a case of acquisition proceedings coming In the way of deciding title in favour of the plaintiff. But for the acquisition proceedings the title would be absolute. Here also but for the Assistant Commissioner''s order the plaintiffs absolute right cannot be questioned as the grant has been made in his favour alone.
Therefore, the view taken by the Appellate Court is perfectly justified and consequently holding that there is no merit, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.