IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKf;.."
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAQ V
DATED THIS THE 23.5'? D£§2%A€)F'J:3'i,Y,-;2t:§3:»_
BEFGRE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 'mjianm "st-£AN*v:fAN§x< §6U§AR 1'
WRIT PE'I'I'1'IC5N__NO..6'39'?$:/fiOQ9(GM4{?§PCj
BETWEEN: 'V
2. sMT.KAL¥A:¢;§'w/o'1,A'rE KRESHNA }:5HAT
AGE:82 Y:és,"Oc;c;Hr:_;usF,,§~1'LD wow,
1::/0 VEVNAYAKA c0L.0N_¥..
smsz .;«,:AsaA;=::::3~£.Rs;f:"ALUK-,--».....
t;.:«;. :[:1s':*;_:2:c_:'1'*a,_- :33 1:40}. .
R~E;P.'-- BY' Pow-:s;R% ':)F"A'E'Z--"QR'NEY HOLDER
SR! GANA§>A'r': . MAHAE:'5A¥».~ESHWAR
gag? FANNE, 3,50» LATE. MAHABALESHWAR 'BEAT
_1?ANNE1=, AG_f;;f:1 Y-.§2S,:~°{3{3C:AGRIUCLTU 12:31',
_; Ez;.C:« KARE'-§..SULLI, PO:YEbALLI, smsz Tam 12:,
Lug: D_ISTRICT\/.581 401,
' ,2? €}1X§*£.Pg':?§'=§'f'§:~£IMAHABALESHWAI12,
" PANNE, S/O. LATE MAHABALESHWAR'
" BHI*;T?.PA:NNE, AGED ABOUT "£31 YRS,
OCC: ACERICULTU REST,
I3£.fO.'vKA¥§'ASULLE, PO:YEDAL§.l,
~.SERfSI TALUK, UK. EBISTRICXE'. PETITIONERS
ggy_s:-{V P E{U'LE1,;, sn:>:)APUR tq,
UK DISTRICT. "
3. SMT. VARNA W/'O KEEWI-9.1:" ':;g«3Di35" _
AGE: 30 ms, sec; HOUSEHQLD worm * --
TALUK: SIDDAPUR, UK', DI$%r:e;<:f:;2 "
4' KUM.i1A, D/O KEER.*_:_'7jI~«*I I--1;3:c3r;@ " %
AGE: 4 YRS, SINCE 1sz1m;'Ar€_ BIiiA'f'
AGE: 33.,Y.1;2s,:jR/_o ~c41+3Qta*.zzK1r.§-Ufw ROAD
OPP.R"3'O QFFICEV, si2:2.s.;,A *L}'.K_£){'.:2fI'1"%IC'I'.
5. SI\s§'I';--'VG.O}iU??:'f $1.4':-;: "K019: r«z;ac;.é;';>;:?:"'B;zAT
AGE: <75 wms, 1;:w;a3:;s;:'; e:.{;:;;,,:3,_'
R,/'Q Bpgwavgazg-,~ ._SI»RSiaTA1,UK
¥J"f"I';M€£; KAP€I§3AI.)P.. Di~sj_1'*Rz<<:'r. RESPONDENTS
‘3’r;–;:.iS :?E’rITi FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 AND
“22?_’s:2? “f§:¥.EE,Y_C1€.j)vI’~iS’I’I’I’E,¥’I’I4C)1’\l’ OF INDIA PRAYING T0 QUASH
%j:i’i=–z.!:?_ “ia«:PU;’;3».N”1:t_:J’;.0RBER PASSED BY THE (EVIL JUDGE}
(SR;-mVN);”‘«$z1§s;”‘;re C}.S.NC).79/I997 BT25/3/08 VIBE
ANN.EXUR.E?:-_;§;.-AND E;TC.,.
TF¥i§f»- PEFITIQN COIWTNG ON Ffifi PRELIRMNARY
” ” ” .§:a.A.g;NG; ‘I’§~£IS BAY THE caum MLASE ma §?OLLOWi’1’~IG:~
The ordar of the “tf;’j;e
plaintiffs to pay couri __as “pef £I1e” i?;,1 i_’L1.z3,{;ir:i1 Vby. L’
vaitling the suit Llflfifii’ Sec!fi3§f1»v,7{2)(d)..Gf«figs fiarnataka
Court Fees. and Sufi§$aiuatio;1’4’3?;:jt;’%:958 is called in
question in this §$rrit;;3étitii;1i7″ ‘ . ‘
,_0:-_»1.:i3§t’; ‘i1T;..__5h0}u1d be I}1(3I°1’I’.iOI}€d that
3131 advocate for the petitioners is
jtiStifi€d the }3I'(}ViSiO£1 of Section 7(2){c1)
&_ Of” Fee and Suit Valuation Act,
‘ §§§’.. 4I§££’3t;. appiicable.
‘ g_ V The suit properfies in question are the house
A ‘ ‘ anti a buiiding. They are not revenue payiag
ijaxxds. Therefare, {ha trial Ceurt was not justified in
dire-sting the petitioners ta value the Suit under Sectimn
:1
“?'(2)(d) of the Karrxataka Court Feefi and
Act. However, under Section 24
petitioner has to pay £1.11} court:=.fee$AAé1S
declaration and for pOSS€$$iG§1 of Llé’ pro;%:€:%i*t1y.V4_V T}:’:_§3:a1iig!’1″‘L.
the petitioners }:1ave:_n0t £9: of their
title, the}; have $o13.g”,i;–;{‘ fcié L. that wfhe dacree
passed in ‘Eon them’ Thzéy
11393 3139- property. Since
‘(ha ‘ under Section 24
(3.) Fee and Suit Valuatioii Act,
1958, {fixpe’fi’Li§;iQ:’s:r%’::_’1€1&ure to pay the p3:e$<:I*i.be<:1 caurt
f§;§~':,a§_iAV'ptQvidAéé .,1111der S6{3¥IiO1"1 i2–4(a) cf the Court. Fags
% g'31;iit:V"aE§iz;:ati0n Act, 1958.
~ V }c*'§e1'1<:€, petition faiis. D§;smiss€d.,
A
sd/~
IUDGE
Kmv