K)
1. Sri.C.Nagaraj, V a
Son of Late D.R.Chennarudrziiah, 'r ..
Aged 57 years, Hindu, A
Residing at No.12,
Upper Pine Line,
Kumara Park West,
Banga10re--560 020.
2. Smt.N.Sum21, _ A
Daughter of C.Nfa_Aga;?a_j'; V
Aged 25'wa1:-%s, h-_ind__u_,..'..'
Resi.c1-ing 'E2; _ _
Uppézf Ff'i4i*r_e .Lii'1«3. = .'
_.Krur:.né1':~21_ "P:r;:1;_ ' " . .
Bainga'i<T)';je-_5(é() (}2 {}:._ _ .
3.
Son of C.Naga:1;1j,'«..\
43 ' "Aged 24 ..y_e'aVrs. Hindu.
V ;_Resi.ding at' $2..
'Upp.ei*«-Pine Line,
T. ':K._L;'r;:-é11*.'<_1 F';11'k West,
« B2.'n'g_a1'Q 1'é-560 020.
4. .. S.§aI.e"Bz1nkofMys<.)rO 009. RESPONDENTS
(By Sh1~i_N.Suryaprakash, Advocate. for Respondent 4)
2%
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and_,227~i.t)f the
Constitution of India praying to quash and set __th'e_o.rder
dated: 20.10.09 passed by the court of 38"' Add,iti(>i1,;1l'Ci*ty"€iVil
Judge, at Bangalore (CCH~39) in O.S.No..9.5_5i'O5,=./Limaiiied
Annexure-C, on its file and etc.,
This Writ Petition coming oniibri'p_reliminary'~ iii.'_B'
group this day, the Court made the t'ollo.wing: »~H " *
ORDER
The petitioner is plz{intit’t’ii’bei”t)re~the trial couit. The suit
was afor |_§a”t”t5i._tvi(),ni5.,and:”separate possession. Incidentally, the
piaintiff hasalso. soiight”‘–t’oi’ declaration that a debt created by
detfeiitgztit Noiii.._itiit’avt..nui’ of defendant No.4 shall not be binding
. jonuthei to the extent of his share. This, in effect, is a
‘r7leclaraition~._asfitt) the liability which defendant No.1 has created
with defendant No.4. This is an issue that would have to be
A ,adjtt_.dicated. If the plaintiff should succeed, to that extent,
iidefendant No.4 would not be able to lay eiaim against the plaintiff
for any relief. The trial court has rightly held that the relief of
3
4’1
declaration against the fourth defendant would attract court fees.
There is no infirmity in the opinion of the Trial Court-;’il”–»i_”‘~«.
2. The counsel for the petitioner
in a suit for partition there are incidentt1’i’reliefs whiiclfi avre-claimed? it
as being consequential to the main relie’f_t)f partition thé1’tlm;iiy*–be
granted. And would contend thetiithis is lon_ei”‘stichli};4uit where an
incidental relief is clainied agtiair;.sttVi”t!r1_e»,fourth defendant and it is
only in the ei’z;;.aanc*»i_l.leiry relie.f_vwhich would not attract
court fees. S_uch_ arturgun’te,tit>.i.s” :_attractive, but is not tenable.
Hence, the petition is rejected.