IN THE HIGH COURT or-" KARNATAKA AT A7
DATED THIS THE 14*" DAY OF AuGusT,.,éj€@;3:VA..:j: 3 T
PRESENfM] 'p. %
THE HON'8LE MR.JUSTI.CEa s.P§;'L%§3}x:~:wuaké»z;afi;%i%"
A N
ms HOIWLE MR. JUSTICE.AA.¥\$'}'afEI\i'ij§§£§PALA si:>woA
WRIT Permow 199:7. 15:3.2k:§eo5Ti(GM~::Pc)
E
Smt. s. Mee:%a%%k:§s«3'm %. 7~ A
Aged aiao;;t_V41'~.yé'a?§,_ _ ,
w/o Sri. B. Suresh '
R/'at :~so.'a;/74,- ' '
C.M.R. Layout, He:jr;é;j;= ,§€esa_§',..:'
Lingarajapuraénén, A
Banga£or_e~ 566-» Qf8#.._
émgjévasan, Adv.,)
1. S.,.__N:-fiéfajan,
Agedasgut 44 years,
S/0 !ateN- Subramanivan,
A 2'; Baiambai Subramamyan
Aged about 66 years,
V% .'.W/0 late No. Subramanian
Both are r/at No.3/1 F" Street,
9et:itioner
Questioning the rejection of the plaént, petitioneripl.ai.f§tiff-.._
has ffled RFA 266/20%.
4. We have heard learned counse! ._on b:oi:§ivV"5§£§;eo"a;j'g;V
perused the record.
5. Sri C.B.Srinivasan, "foe
petitioner conteraéed of$§r...v'dated
8.10.2004 passed by the plaintiff
to value the suit; Act is far in
excess of its i'ori$ki§_otio'n;. .irea?§'v.§v'ioiated rules of fair
proceduré2__an_d cfbfiafturai justice by not granting
reasonable" o;;:$;»or'tu'n§tg¥'A' petitioner to state her
_vobject§¢§ns to i:h'e. about the correctness of the
:"V.v'oiu3.t:§%on is contended that without opportunity
oAf"'he*ak.;_'ir§g','Tthne order was passed. Learned cotmsei
aiso péointc-;d omit that in the piairst, the averments are to
efrecothat the piaintiff has been in joint and
4'_'_corat§tr'*u<§t§ve possession and enjoyment of the suit
VT '::'_4so»h«i-gdule properties along with defendants i and 2 arm
hence it Is the piaint averments alone which have to be
kl
of the cieniai of the titie of the piaintiff to the suit pmpe.r§_;y
and she being not in actuai possession and enjoyi*ne"n£f"af"~.s_'
the property, is iiabie to pay the Ceurt fee eh t.3§é :r:sVrh'e§t "
vame of the property of her share in izerms
(1) of section 35 of the Act and thus::'.i:h'aé t'fi'a_i: '
justified in passing the impugn§s;rdek§" .;.sa.rAhé:§J";{:6tihsiei
made submissions in surapsrt ofVt.hs§:A'i'mpa:gnsd"care:1er,:§
Ir'. Having heard iea__rh.ed {coqnse.IV_~Q%h--..both sidss, the
point for consideration is: A»
"whet-her'*§:;':he*~.»triai "C-mvrt has propsriy
exe:rcised""$:h.g'=_ju:tisdi5:tioh in passing the
impkmfied' stag":-r, 'a.r1cis..."vgfhether the impugned
order' suffers 'from' :1_1:-rfieriai error or irregutarity?
.a; Ti2e uiiamgsteés facts are tam, the suit fest"
'A'~.psArtjit:sr: 's1%.d--.sspsrate psssession has been fired by the
pst%tAihnherV;" :"I"_::._§tr§:;%3"';.{>iaint, she has inter siis contenéed that
V she isnin jxsjht "Sand constructive possessien and enjoyment
H K the. 4_suivVt"' scheduie properties. Respondents/defendants
.’_’ha§’s”C6ntested the suit and have filed the written
T iststément denying the ciairn and materiakfverments made
/A
for partition of suit scheduie properties as well
deciaratéon that certain aiienations mae.e_”:”‘-ey’fjjthe
defendants in respect of joint far:r*::.;’ii§ T_
binding on the piaintiffs, was file-s:$_by xreiuing izirwejeiz”.-,’:.;.i~.i’A’t”u’.’*::’,’§<'-;~.i.ré"'viVit
Section 35(2) of the Act, whieT%!.:VV:"'s~;as resisteei the
defeneants, inter aiia cei'f:'zeai*:cti_«i*i§'V_ pieifitiffe net
being it': posse-esien ef the sheuizzi
have valued the ;3u'a%%;.V§inee§§ the Act on the
ground that of the property.
Censiderifié’tithe:$eig;’§Vi5’iee’ei.?§§s,Aeh’tissue was framed ~
whether ttseeuit for the immose of
Court fee end”‘j~uif’is:$ir:tie’s3.V”‘i”he trial Court had held that
;_f’t’%~..e._ ;)i’éi:fitiff:S were pessession of the suit schedule
vaiue the ciaim under sub-sectier: (1)
i it of Seetien 35’ tiiilie Act and ciirectee them to vaiue the suit
-:_t’_;’:…_’preperty ‘aec1:ardingiy and fer new payment of the Court fee,
igifented having exeired, piaint was rejected. ween
‘ erde} cf the trial Ceert was questienee in epeeei in this
A..__4’4§:eurt, fosiewirzg the iaw laid dc;-wt: by the Hozfbie Supreme
Ceurt iii tfié case of NEELAVATI AND GTHERS VS. NATRA3
K
/ .
10
amended.
(iii) The plaintiff in a suit beinodonflllnusllvitls nas)ehe,’~
choice of filing a suit of»ipo_rticulo-5 nature ‘o.r=se,ek: a
particular relief. Neither titeeefend-ant the Court
can alter the suit as one fore differeritrellef or as a
suit failing in a different«”catepoiy_ and require the
plaintiff to pay coort_-ffee *on;_sslch_’eltered category of
(iv) If th_e–_pl_aintjiff ,cljelms’~~.”thet ‘Vile is in joint
possession o*;?;,._.i-3′, 5,l’–op;¢,rrty end ‘ seeks partition and
separate”possession’,_jhe”~~oetegories the suit under 5.
35(2) of_the;»’_Act.’ «,l-i=e]’ is,””the’jrefore, liable to pay
ceumfee ‘oniy”3ii:nder, S. 35(v2)V.” If on evidence, it is
found the-tj_..he’«~.wes ‘-«n_ot_ in joint possession, the
con’seq«eence” ls..,4titat=._ti’le reiid may be refused in
regard to ‘south. pro__p”e:’ty or the suit may be
dismissed. _ But thetguezatlon of Court treating the
suit as one falling under 5. 35(1) of the Act and
directing th’e-.plaln.tlff to pay the court-fee under
‘-S.35{e1)'”o.f the Actdoes not arise. Even after written
. ‘-.stetemenVt’*~«a_nd evidence, (which may demonstrate
V ei’>ee’r:..-;e- of ‘possession or joint possession) if the
‘ ~. “piaintiflf’_v»ch’eoses not to amend the plalnt to bring the
‘suit under 5. 33(1) and pay court-fee applicable
thereto,” ” he takes the chance of suit owing
dismissed or relief being denim.
, (V) on appreciation of evidence, if the Court
‘cilsbelleves the claim of plat-ntif!’ regarding joint
: possession, it can only hold that the case does not
fall under 5. 35(2) and, therefore, plaintiff is not
entitled to relief. It cannot, in the judgment, hold
that the case of plaintiff should be\:ategorised under
reasonabie opportunity to the plaintiff to have her, V.
regard to the valuation of the suit for the k
payment of Court fee, the impugned”oi’der”–,su;ffers«.froth
materiai infirmity and there is a Aroateriai
committed by the trio! court and”so’iaseqdentiy~V.tfiehis
iiable to be set aside.
For the foregoing reassess, ti$.e:vierit’»peti1t’ion is aiiowed
as foliows:
(5)
(H3 ..
hordes’? passed in
o.s’.1s3}i3ooej%i by the xvm Additional City
” 41Civi_{3djd.Qe,.Bahgaiore, is hereby sa aside;
tri2ai*i’isCd’drt is directed to hear the
_%_pa:tAiesvv….e.nd pass orders with regard to
–.§fa~i.dation and payment of Court fm,
in View the iaw laid down by this
. in the decisions referred to supra;
Since the suit is of the year 2904 and is one
for partition and separate possession, the
trial Court is directed to expedite the
hearing with regard to the aforesaid aspect
of the suit and aiso the triai and dispose! of
the suit;
Since both sides are represented, In _
any delay in dispesai of the suitkgt is “that_ u
the trial Court shah take up the:’:;uit_jfo..r:’ cnhei§!eret3i3nA
on 1.9.2008 and the parties4–shaIIh’a.p’near V
triai Court without any
Learned counsei apheeLi1nd«_fo{r’thhefpnrties shail keep
their clients -present’=.hefore;__thAé~_ Court on
1.9.2003tevitaitéifurthertortiersfrom the ma! Court.
The ;§etitionerin|’eiAnt4iff–féhell produce a copy of this
_order ‘record Gttthvte ttial Court within a period of one
inAV-menth’vt’fro§;n:te§iay, to enable the trial Court to take foiiow
Sd/-
Judge
Sd/-
Judge
X % kissi-