Tony Vincent vs M.C. Kishore

Anand Byrareddy, J.—These petitions are considered and disposed of together having regard to the common issue that arises for consideration.

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of 1 acre 30 guntas of land and the petitioners are the defendants in the several suits filed by the respective respondents herein. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiffs before the trial court that they have purchased individual sites culled out of agricultural land and were in possession. When their possession was sought to be interfered with by the petitioners and though the court below had granted an order of temporary injunction, the petitioner, with impunity, had trespassed into the property. This entailed the respondents to seek amendment of the suit prayer and to seek declaration and mandatory injunction and possession. The respondents also are said to have paid the court fees, while valuing the suit property in terms of Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Hereinafter referred to as the ''KCFSV Act'', for brevity). The petitioners herein however, had raised objection to demonstrate that when the suit is for declaration and possession, it necessarily would have to be valued u/s 24(a) and not 24(b) of the KCFSV Act. The court below not having taken into account of such an objection being raised, an application was filed seeking framing of an additional issue to that effect. That application having been rejected, the present petitions are filed.

The court below has however taken a view that the court fees has been paid as contemplated in law and has rejected the application on the ground that the defendants have not produced any material to show that the valuation is different, though the defendants claim to have furnished the guidance value of the property in the area and claim that they have purchased the entire extent of land.

The question for consideration is whether the court was bound to frame an issue on the question of adequacy or otherwise of the court fee paid and to treat the same as a preliminary issue. It is no doubt true that Section 11(2) of the KCFSV Act does contemplate that in the event of an issue being raised by the defendant in his written statement as to the sufficiency or otherwise of the court fee paid, the court below shall address the same at the preliminary stage and deal with it before proceeding further on the merits of the case.

Having regard to the fact that the valuation of the property in terms of section 24(a) is with regard to the market value of the property and the basis adopted by the plaintiffs being otherwise, it would be necessary for the court below to frame an issue on the adequacy or otherwise of the court fee with reference to the market value, having regard to the tenor of Section 24(a), and try the same along with the main issues and not necessarily as a preliminary issue, as this would further delay the proceedings. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if this exercise is undertaken.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is set aside with a direction to formally frame an issue as regards the sufficiency or otherwise of the court fee paid, which shall be decided along with the other issues at the trial. The petitions stand disposed of.

This court, in earlier proceedings, had directed the court below to dispose of the suits expeditiously, the last date for which was even fixed. In any event, the trial court is bound to follow the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Court) Rules, 2005, which would ensure expeditious disposal. Therefore, the trial court is directed to strictly adhere to the said Rules and endeavour to dispose of the suits at the earliest and not necessarily within any time fixed by this court.