Writ Petition No. 48074 of 2018 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 48074 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: PANTHERS SPORTS CLUB REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SRI B.RAMACHANDRA, REGISTERED OFFICE: NO.3613, M-27, SITUATED AT SARASWATHI RICE MILL COMPOUND, NEW SAYYAJIRAO ROAD, TILAKNAGAR, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 021 (BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. M.P.ANAND S/O LATE M.PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. M.JYOTHI D/O LATE M.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.3621/2,3621/1-M-20, NEW SAYYAJIRAO ROAD, SERVICE ROAD, TILAKNAGAR, MANDI MOHALLA MYSORE-570 021 3. NAVEEN CHANDRA S/O V.RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO.2793, 9TH CROSS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 V.V.MOHALLA MYSORE-570 002 (BY SRI.P.MAHADEVASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.B.SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2017 IN M.A.NO.69/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MYSORE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.01.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV ORDER The present petition is filed assailing the orders passed in I.A.No.3 in O.S. No. 31/2010 dated 25.04.2015, on the file of the III Additional First Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysuru, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No. 69/2015 dated 27.11.2017, on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysuru. The petitioner is before this Court who is the
Legal Reasoning
plaintiff in the suit. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to hold and enjoy the suit scheduled property as per the Will and also for the relief of permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Will - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 has been executed by the owner of the suit schedule property
Legal Reasoning
by name Sri. M. Nagaraju in his favor. Sri. M. Nagaraju is a maternal uncle of defendant No.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are entitled to enjoy the property by virtue of the alleged Will and as such, they have sought for the relief of declaration of the alleged right under the Will. The 3rd defendant has filed I.A.No.3 seeking return of the plaint, on the ground that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The said I.A. came to be allowed by order dated 25.04.2015, whereby the trial Court has returned the plaint and while returning the plaint, the Court has observed that on a thorough reading of the plaint averments and relief claimed, it is very much clear that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration, to declare that the plaintiff-Club is entitled to hold and enjoy the suit schedule property based on Will, the relief sought is in respect of immovable property. The counsel for the defendant has furnished the copy of the guideline value fixed in respect of the property situated in Mysore North Sub-Registrar Jurisdiction. According to the guidelines value fixed by the Sub- Registrar Office, Mysore North in respect of the property situated at Sayyaji Road, Mysore, the value in respect of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 properties within the jurisdiction of the said area, per square feet is fixed at Rs.4,500/-. The plaintiff has given the measurement of the suit schedule property approximately as East to West:130 feet, North to South:120 feet, totally measuring 15,600 square feet. If the same is multiplied by Rs.4,500/-, then the value of the suit schedule property comes to Rs.7,02,00,000/-. In the present case, the plaintiff has valued the relief for Rs.1,000/- and has paid the Court Fee on the said value since the relief of declaration is sought with respect to the suit schedule property which is a immovable property and according to the plaintiff, the same measures 130 x 120 feet. Therefore, the value fixed by the Sub-Registrar per square feet is taken into consideration, the value of the property exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and accordingly the Court had passed the order allowing the I.A. and consequently the plaint is returned to the plaintiff to present it before the proper Court as the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction. The plaintiff has assailed the said order by filing M.A. No. 69/2015 before the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Mysore. The Appellate Court had confirmed the order of the Trial Court and the findings of the Appellate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 Court are that on perusal of the plaint averments itself, it goes to show that the plaintiff has claimed the right to play and enjoy the property in the form of declaration as per the Will. However, the exact market value of the property which is disputed by the defendant is based on the documents issued by the Sub-Registrar. Admittedly, it is not marked. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, it goes to show that it is specifically stated by the plaintiff only with regard to the right and not with regard to the market value of the property. Therefore, the right which is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property values more than Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, the findings given by the Trial Court in returning the plaint by concluding that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction is just and proper and it needs no interference. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the courts below, the plaintiff is before this court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - plaintiff submits that the Trial Court erred in holding that the plaintiff shall pay the Court Fee at the actual market value. It is submitted that there is no dispute about the market value but the dispute is as to whether the Court Fee is liable to be paid on the market price of the schedule property or not. It is - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 argued that the Court Fee has to be paid on the actual value of the subject matter of the suit, if the plaintiff prays for declaration of his title and ownership in respect of the suit schedule property. But reading of the entire plaint, makes it clear that the plaintiff has not prayed for any declaration of the title of the plaintiff to the suit scheduled property and he did not claim any ownership rights over the property and this aspect was not considered by the Courts below. The averments made in the plaint, the contention taken up by the defendants in the written statement and the plaint averments make it clear that the plaintiff has not prayed for any declaration of title or ownership in respect of the suit schedule property and it is the claim of the plaintiff that one Nagaraju has executed a Will dated 30.09.2007. In the said Will, he has expressed his wish that the Club started by him and his friends namely Panthers Sports Club should continue to run in the same manner with the same activities in the schedule property till his nephew alters or improves the suit property. Hence, in those circumstances, the plaintiff need not pay the Court Fee on the market value of the property. It is submitted that as per Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), the court fee is payable under the proviso (d) of Section 24 of the Act and even in the prayer column also what they have sought is to hold and enjoy the property, which means that the plaintiff has a right to carry on the Club activities as per the Will dated 30.09.2007 of Late M. Nagaraju. Hence, such a declaration falls under Section 24(d) of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in B.S. Malleshappa vs. Koratagigere B. Shivalingappa and Others1. He had relied on paragraph No.11 of the said judgment which reads as under: 11. We may now conveniently summarise the principles relating to Court fee in regard to suits for partitions and appeals therefrom: i) Payment of Court fee will depend on plaint averment alone. Neither the averments in the written statement, nor the evidence nor the final decision have a bearing on the decision relating to Court fee. ii) The scope of investigation under Section 11 is confined practically to determine two points: (i) Under valuation of the subject matter of the suit and (ii) category under which the suit falls, for the purpose of Court fee. Once the category of suit is to plaint determined with averments, the Court cannot subsequently reference 1 ILR 2001 KAR 3988 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 change the category on the basis of the averments in the written statement or on the basis of evidence and arguments. In short, if the suit is found to fall under Section 35(2) of the Act on the plaint averments, the Court has no power to convert the suit as one falling under Section 35(1) of the Act, at any point of time, much less while rendering judgment. The only exception is when the plaint is amended. iii) The plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis has the choice of filing a suit of a particular nature or seek a particular relief. Neither the defendant nor the Court can alter the suit as one for a different relief or as a suit falling in a different category and require the plaintiff to pay Court fee on such altered category of suit. iv) If the plaintiff claims that he is in joint possession of a property and seeks partition and separate possession, he categorises the suit under Section 35(2) of the Act. He is therefore liable to pay Court if on fee only under Section 35(2) evidence, it is found that he was not in joint possession, the consequence is that the relief, may be refused in regard to such property or the suit may be dismissed. But the question of Court treating the suit as one falling under Section 35(1) of the Act and directing the plaintiff to pay the Court fee under Section 35(1) of the Act does not arise. Even after written statement and evidence, demonstrate absence of possession or joint possession) if the plaintiff chooses not to amend the plaint to bring the suit under Section 35(1) and pay Court fee applicable thereto, he takes the chance of suit getting dismissed or relief being denied. (which may (v) On appreciation of evidence, if the Court disbelieves the claim of plaintiff regarding - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 joint possession, it can only hold that the case does not fall under Section 35(2) and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to relief. It cannot, in the judgment, hold that the case of plaintiff should be categorised under Section 35(1) nor direct the plaintiff to pay Court fee on market value under Section 35(1) of the Act. (vi) The Court fee payable on an appeal is the same as the Court fee payable on the suit. Therefore even if the trial Court holds that plaintiff was not in joint possession or that plaintiff from possession, there will be no change in the Court fee payable in an appeal by the plaintiff against such decision. The Court fee on the appeal will still be the same as the Court fee paid on the plaint in the Court of first instance. excluded been had Then he had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma and another2. He relied on paragraph No.9.1 which reads as under: 9.1. It remains trite that it is the nature of relief claimed in the plaint which is decisive of the question of suit valuation. As a necessary corollary, the market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The market value of the immovable property involved in the litigation might have its relevance depending on the nature 2 AIR 2022 SC 2867 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 of relief claimed but, ultimately, the valuation of any particular suit has to be decided primarily with reference to the relief/reliefs claimed. He had relied on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in case of Chandi Charan Das vs. Sm. Sushilabala Dasi3. He relied on Paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11 and 13 which reads as under: 9. It will be convenient to “examine some uses of the words “subject-matter” as used in matters outside the courts of law. A professor of English literature is giving a lecture on the question whether Shakespeare and Bacon were identical persons. What is the “subject-matter” of this lecture? It is not right to say that Shakespeare is the subject-matter nor is it right to say that Bacon is the subject-matter. The proper answer certainly is, the subject-matter is the question of identity of Shakespeare and Bacon. The lecture is about Shakespeare and Bacon but only the particular matter to which the lecturer directs his attention can be called the subject-matter. The fact that the object of the lecture may be to establish the identity or to demolish the theory of identity of the two is no reason for not describing the question of identity 3 AIR 1955 Calcutta 144 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 of these two persons as the subject-matter of the lecture. 10. A Club is considering the question whether members should come in dhoti. What is the subject-matter of the discussion? The subject- matter is not dhoti nor is it the dress of members. The subject-matter is the desirability of members attending the Club in dhoti. 11. It is clear from this examination that to say that the subject-matter of a suit is what the suit is about is an unhelpful simplification of the problem for the question will still have to be answered, what is the suit about? Some people bring a suit on a claim of the right of irrigation from a tank. Is the suit about water of the tank, or is it about the lands sought to be irrigated or is it merely about this right of irrigation. I think it is easy to agree that the best answer to the question is that the suit is about the right to- irrigation and it is this right, not the tank, nor the land, that is the subject-matter of the suit. 13. I think it may be correctly said in all case that as a suit is brought for a relief the subject-matter is the relief. The fact that this relief is asked for in respect of movable or immovable properties does not make that property the subject-matter of the relief. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this is a suit filed for declaration of his right and title over the property. In that case, Section 24 of the Act applies, where Clause 24(a) of the Act clearly stipulates that 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. It is submitted that as per the valuation made by the Sub-Registrar, the Court had rightly considered and rightly come to the conclusion that as it is exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the case and returned the plaint permitting the petitioner to present it before the appropriate Court and the plaintiff without presenting it before the appropriate Court has started filing one case after the other. It is submitted that both the Courts have rightly held that there is no pecuniary jurisdiction to the Court to decide the said suit and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered orders passed by the Courts below. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Before proceeding with the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 merits of the matter, it is appropriate to look at the plaint and the reliefs that are sought in the plaint. The reliefs that are sought by the plaintiff as per the plaint are extracted as below: 1. To declare that the plaintiff Club is entitled to hold and enjoy the schedule property as per the Will executed by late Sri. M. Nagaraj dated 30-9-2007. 2. For the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants their heirs, successors, agents, servants, or any body acting under them from interfering with the Club activity being run in the schedule property. 3. For costs and other incidental reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity. 6. A close perusal of the plaint averments reveals that it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a registered Club registered under the Registration of Co-Operative Societies Act. The main object and moto of the Club is to organize sports, promote sports and sportsmanship, undertake charitable work in tune with the wish and ambition of its Founder President late Sri.M.Nagaraju. The Club is situated in - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 the suit schedule premises, has a Shuttle Courts, Multi Gymnasium with all the latest equipments, Table Tennis Court, Ball Badminton Court, Recreation Centre, Indoor ports, Cycling, Tread Mill/Walkers, Food Zone, Kitchen area including function place. All the instruments in the Club belongs to all the members of the Club. After the death of Nagaraju and on the first year death ceremony, in the meeting, one Sri. Lakshminarayan one of the senior member and a close associate of late Sri. M. Nagaraju disclosed before all the members including the President and the Secretary that during the life time of Sri. M. Nagaraju, the Founder of the Club has handed over the sealed cover to him and had informed that in the event of his demise, after one year, the sealed cover has to be handed over jointly to his Nephew Sri. M. P. Anand and Sri. B.Ramachandra, the senior member of the Club and that it should be read in front of them in the presence of the members and that everything should happen according to it and that is his last wish. Likewise, Sri. Lakshminarayan handed over the sealed cover to B. Ramachandra, the present President and Secretary and after opening the sealed cover, it was found that it was a Will executed by late M. Nagaraju on 30.09.2007. It - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 was read over by the Secretary in the presence of others including the first defendant. The contents of the said Will discloses that the schedule property including other property situated at a different place absolutely belongs to Sri. M. Nagaraju and he has expressed his final wish and ambition how the schedule properties should be made use and to whom it should finally go/vest. According to the Will executed by late M. Nagaraju, he has expressed his wish that the Club started by him and his friends should continue to run as it is with the same activity in the schedule property and it is his wish that it shall continue till such time his Nephew Sri. M. P. Anand, either alters or improves the schedule property, thereby expressing his wish in writing through Will for the continuation of the Club as it was during his life time. Further, he has also expressed his wish/desire, in the said Will that the house in which he is residing should go to the second defendant, who is his elder brother's daughter. That apart, the second defendant is entitled to succeed to all his dues from Lokayukta and other Government departments wherein the said Sri. M. Nagaraju has rendered services including all his movables. Hence, the present suit is filed seeking a declaration - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 that the Club is entitled to enjoy the schedule property as per the Will executed by late Sri. M. Nagaraju dated 30.09.2007. As this is the suit for declaration, it is appropriate to look at Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act deals with suits for declaration, which reads as under: "24. Suits for declaration: In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under section 25 - (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 4[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 1[rupees one thousand] whichever is higher; 4 Substituted by Act No.13 of 1982, w.e.f. 1-4-1982 for the words "rupees one hundred". - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 (c) 5[ x x x x x] (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 6 [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher." 7. According to the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and as per the defendant, the Court Fee has to be paid as per Section 24(a) and (b). As per Section 24(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 and as per Section 24(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. As per Section 24(d), in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed 5 *Clause (c) Omitted by Act No. 13 of 1982, w.e.f. 1-4-1982. 6 Substituted by Act No.13 of 1982, w.e.f. 1-4-1982 for the words "rupees two hundred and fifty". - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher. Reading of Section 24 of the Act makes it very clear that when a relief is sought in respect of an immobile property for declaration and consequential injunction, a particular fee is fixed, but in all other cases of declaration, which is as per the value of the plaint or rupees one thousand whichever is higher. In this case, the plaintiff is not seeking any declaration or possession of the property. What is sought in this case is, as per the Will, for a particular period of time, he is entitled to enjoy the property i.e., till the defendant starts making construction. In those circumstances, at any stretch of imagination, the relief that is sought by the plaintiff do not fall under Section 24(a) and (b) of the Act and it necessarily falls under Section 24(d) of the Act and as rightly argued by the learned counsel relying on the judgments, the Court cannot understand the relief from the arguments of the defendant but from the pleadings of the plaintiff and the relief that is sought in the plaint. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that Section 24(d) of the Act applies to the present case and the Trial Court has - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17945 WP No. 48074 of 2018 jurisdiction to try the suit. In view of the same, this Court is passing the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The order dated 25.04.2015 passed in O.S. No. 31/2010 on the file of the III Additional First Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysore, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.69/2015 dated 27.11.2017 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mysuru are set aside and consequently, I.A. No.3 filed by defendant No.3 is dismissed. ii) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. iii) Pending I.As., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36