MRS. ANJU SARAF v. T. RAVIKANTHA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
With the above observation the petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. It is also made clear that the value of the property as it stood on the date of the filing of the suit is to be taken into consideration and not the present value and in case the plaintiff succeeds, the defendant No.6 is…
Judgment
(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
T. RAVIKANTHA S/O. LATE SRI. T. DRUVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18375 WP No. 147666 of 2020 HC-KAR C/O. R/O. K.T. MALLAMMA BALAUNSI, KUDLIGI ROAD, HANEKAL POST, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK, BALLARI-583 224.
SMT. P. BAGYA W/O. T. RAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O : 33RD WARD, MYSAKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201.
SMT. JYOTHI W/O. T. RAJENDRA MAJOR, R/O. HOUSE NO.55, 32ND WARD, NEAR KOTTESHANKAR LINGA TEMPLE, TALAVARKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201.
SRI. T. SRIKANTH S/O. LATE SRI. T. DRUVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O : 33RD WARD, MYSAKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201.
T. ANNAPPA NAYAKA S/O. LATE T. DRUVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O : 33RD WARD, MYSAKERI, HOSAPETE TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18375 WP No. 147666 of 2020 HC-KAR
SMT. P. SWOMAYA W/O. MANJUNATH POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O : DOOR NO.2-108, 7TH WARD, NEAR VALMIKI CIRCLE, BAGYA NAGAR, KOPPAL, KOPPAL TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 238. (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2-R6 IS SERVED) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPATE ON I.A.NO.4 DATED 04.07.2020 IN O.S.NO.45/2018, ALLOW HIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18375 WP No. 147666 of 2020 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated
03.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hosapete on I.A. No.5 in O.S. No.45/2018 rejecting the defendants contention that the Court fee paid under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (‘KCFSV Act’) is not correct and the plaintiff ought to have paid a Court fee under the KCFSV Act.
2. The Court has gone through the averments made in the plaint and the plaintiff has not stated that he is in joint possession of the property. An overall reading of the plaint would indicate that the defendant No.6 is in possession of the property. The Court has also recorded a finding that plaintiff is not in a possession. It is also noticed from the order that the Trial Court has observed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18375 WP No. 147666 of 2020 HC-KAR that the plaintiff has admitted that he is not in joint possession of the property.
3. Under these circumstances, the Court fee is required to be paid under Section 35(1) of the ‘KCFSV Act on the market value of the suit property as the plaintiff is claiming 1/6th share.
4. It is made clear that the plaintiff is required to pay Court fee only on one sixth share of the market value of the suit property as the plaintiff is claiming only one sixth share. The Trial Court shall fix the date for the plaintiff to pay the Court fee.
5. Since the defendant No.1 is asserting that he is in exclusive possession of the property, it is also made clear that in case the plaintiff succeeds in the suit, the defendants are liable to pay the mesne profits.
6. Under the circumstances the impugned order is set aside. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18375 WP No. 147666 of 2020 HC-KAR
The direction is given to the Trial Court to direct the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the market value of 1/6th share.
Operative part
It is also made clear that the value of the property as it stood on the date of the filing of the suit is to be taken into consideration and not the present value and in case the plaintiff succeeds, the defendant No.6 is also liable to pay the cost of the suit and mesne profit as defendant has asserted exclusive possession of the property. With the above observation the petition is allowed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE Chs Ct-mck list no.: 1 sl no.: 69 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18375 WP No. 147666 of 2020 HC-KAR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above observation the petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.