Judgment :- (This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 03.02.2010, passed on Addl. issue No.1 in O.S.No.659/2001, on the file of the Principal II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, directing the plaintiff therein to take back the plaint and present it before the Jurisdictional Court as the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants therein for the relief of declaration, possession and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property is not properly valued and the Court has not pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.) This is a plaintiff’s revision questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dated 03.02.2010 in O.S.No.659/2001, whereunder while answering Additional issue No.1, the Court below has held that it does not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently ordered the plaintiff to take back the plaint and present it before jurisdictional Court. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The parties are referred to as per the ranks before the Court below. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and consequential relief and also for delivery of possession of suit schedule property and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the 5th defendant, his agents, men, supporters, assigns, executors and workers from not changing the nature of the suit schedule property amongst other reliefs. 3. It was contended by the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 02.07.1947 and it is her self-acquired property. It was also contended that the first defendant had executed a registered deed of settlement in respect of suit property as per settlement deed dated 02.01.1970 and per the said settlement, the plaintiff was allotted 5 guntas of land, which according to the plaintiff is the subject matter of the suit and described in the plaint as suit schedule property. She also claimed to be in possession of suit schedule property and on account of certain persons including the 4th defendant having attempted to interfere with her possession, she filed the present suit. 4. On service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. She also claimed to be in possession of suit schedule property and on account of certain persons including the 4th defendant having attempted to interfere with her possession, she filed the present suit. 4. On service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed the written statement denying the plaint averments. A specific plea was taken that suit was under valued and the market value of the suit schedule property was exceeding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and accordingly sought for dismissal of the same. On the basis of the contentions taken by the plaintiffs and defendants, issues were framed on 17.09.2009. An additional issue came to be framed on 02.12.2009, which read as under: i) Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? ii) What order? 5. It was also noted by the Court below while framing the additional issue that said issue will be held as a preliminary issue as it pertains to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. During the interregnum period of framing of issues on 17.02.2009 and 02.12.2009, according to the defendant, the plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint by way of declaration by defendant No.6 that the sale deed is null and void. The said amendment is said to have been allowed by the Court below and no fresh valuation has been filed according to the defendant and in view of these facts, the defendant contends that they were forced to file the application under Sections 6 and 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss the suit as it had no pecuniary jurisdiction, which application came to be numbered as I.A.No.25. The Court below on considering the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the parties by its order dated 03.02.2010 held that suit schedule property is not properly valued and Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently by answering additional Issue No.1 in the affirmative directed the plaintiff to take back the plaint and present it before the jurisdictional Court. 6. It is this order, which is now questioned by the plaintiff in this revision petition. 7. This matter was posted on 25.03.2010 and after arguing the matter for considerable time and while concluding the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. 6. It is this order, which is now questioned by the plaintiff in this revision petition. 7. This matter was posted on 25.03.2010 and after arguing the matter for considerable time and while concluding the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. S.R. Hegde Hudlamane sought for further time to produce or furnish certain authorities in support of his submissions. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to today. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would at the outset fairly concede that it would not be proper to proceed with the arguments when it was being concluded except with the leave of the Court and accordingly sought the leave of this Court to address the arguments assuring the Court that arguments advanced would be confined to the questions of law. In view of the said request, this Court permitted Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate to address arguments. 8. Sri. S.P. Shankar, would contend that Court fee payable in a suit of this nature would be with reference to sale deed-qua suit schedule property and elaborating his submissions on this, he would contend that suit schedule property measures only 04 guntas and thus the valuation adopted by the plaintiff as per Section 24-A of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act cannot be found fault with. He would also submit that question of considering the issue of Court fee is controlled by Section 11 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1956, wherein it is held under Section 11(2) that before recording of the evidence, the issue regarding Court fee has to be determined and once the recording of evidence has commenced, the Court should not embark upon holding an enquiry with regard to Court fee payable and no such issue can be determined. He would also submit that prayer sought for in the plaint is with reference to the suit schedule property only and it cannot be construed to be in respect of entire sale deed and accordingly submits that the order of Court below suffers from jurisdictional error and requires to be revised by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 115 and accordingly prays that the revision petition be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Court below. The learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the following judgments: i) AIR 1971 SC 87 The State of U.P. vs. Ramkrishan Burman (dead) by his legal representatives and others ii) AIR 2007 AP 57 Yanala Malleshwari vs. Ananthula Sayamma iii) AIR 1987 SC 2085 Smt. Tara Devi vs. Sri. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj iv) 1984 KLJ 97 Umarabba vs. Pathunni and others 9. Per contra, Sri. Srinivas. N., learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.K.S. Law Associates for R6 would submit that suit was filed in the year 2001 and at the first instance, the defendant had raised the issue regarding pecuniary jurisdiction by filing the written statement by raising such a plea in the written statement and Issue No.2 had been framed by the court below with regard to sale deed dated 24.12.1999 is to be held as null and void or otherwise and since the plaintiff on amendment being allowed did not file a revised valuation memo had necessitated the defendant in filing the application requesting the Court to reject the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. He would submit that as per the recital in the sale deed, the sale consideration shown in the sale deed is at Rs.18,54,150/- and the plaintiff has sought for declaration to declare the said sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and when such being the position, the plea of the plaintiff that Court fee is to be determined in respect of a sale deed-qua suit schedule property cannot be accepted since the sale deed cannot be declared as null and void in piece meal. Accordingly, submits that Court below having considered these facts has come to a conclusion that it does not have a pecuniary jurisdiction and he seeks for confirmation of the order passed by the Court below and rejection of the revision petition. 10. In reply, Sri. S.P. Shankar would contend that even otherwise by virtue of amendment to the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, under Section 17, the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) is limited upto Rs.5 Lakhs and as such, the very Court before in which the suit was filed would get pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and accordingly submits that order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 11. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for my consideration: i) Whether in a suit for declaration to declare a document/deed/instrument as null and void plaintiff can value the suit restricting the same to the extent of property described in schedule to plaint and pay court-fee accordingly? Or Plaintiff has to pay court fee on the consideration reflected in the document/deed/instrument which may include larger extent of property than claimed in the plaint schedule? ii) Whether the order passed by the Court below suffers from any infirmity either in law or on facts? iii) What order? 12. Regarding Point No.1: In order to consider the contentions raised in this petition, it would be of necessary to extract the relevant provision, which has been relied upon by the trail Court namely Sec.24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, 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 (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 (rupees one thousand), which is higher; (c) x x x x 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 (rupees one thousand) whichever is higher. During the course of argument, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. During the course of argument, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.P. Shankar, has pressed into service Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and particularly Sec.11(2) and the same is also extracted, which reads as under: 11(1): x x x x x x x x x 11(2): Any defendant may, by his written statement filed before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim but, subject to the next succeeding sub-section not later, plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. If the Court decides that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the plaint shall be amended in accordance with the Court’s decision and the deficit fee shall be paid. If the plaint be not amended or if the deficit fee be not paid within the time allowed, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding costs of the suit. 13. Now, coming to the plea advanced by the plaintiff in the plaint, it is contended therein that sale deed dated 24.12.1999 registered as document No. 7098 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant in the written statement has taken a specific plea regarding Court Fee, which reads as under: “8. The defendants submit that the plaintiff has not paid proper Court fee and the suit is undervalued. The plaintiff is seeking cancellation sale deed and seeking vacant possession that are required to be valued separately under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Since, the property is a converted property having market value the plaintiff is required to value under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court fees and Suit Valuation Act”. 14. Thus, admittedly, the defendant at the first instance has raised defence with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. Since, the property is a converted property having market value the plaintiff is required to value under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court fees and Suit Valuation Act”. 14. Thus, admittedly, the defendant at the first instance has raised defence with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The issue regarding jurisdiction would have a direct bearing to try the suit and other issues that may be framed in a suit and as such, Section 11(2) mandates that to avoid any further consideration of the merits of the case so as to avoid the delay and also to save the public time. Infact, this issue was the subject matter of consideration by this Court in the case of “The Karnataka Theosophical Federation –vs- Balakrishna Ashrama” reported in ILR 1999 KAR 2930 wherein it is held to the following effect: “A perusal of sub-Section(2) to (6) of Section 11 per se reveals and mandates that all questions relating to proper valuation of the subject matter of the suit and payment of proper Court fee arising on the basis of the pleas and written statement shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, on the merits of the claim. Section 11 of the Act provides remedy against order of the Court in such matters as per sub-Section 4(a) and (b) thereof provides a complete course of action at proper stage provided therein and is complete code by itself”. 15. The law relating to suit valuation Act and Court fees payable being a special law provision prevail over the general law provision viz., the Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure where the special law mandates that issue regarding Court fee or payment of proper and appropriate Court fee must be tried as a preliminary issue and that mandate requires to be complied. Hence, the Court below on such plea having been raised by the defendant and the valuation memo having not been filed by the plaintiff brought to the notice of the Court below with regard to the maintainability of the suit by filing of I.A.No25 and sought for rejection of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court at which point of time the Court below framed the preliminary issue, which reads as under: “Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?” 16. It is no doubt true that Section 11(2) mandates that before recording of evidence, the issue regarding Court fee will have to be determined. However, the issue regarding the jurisdiction is also to be considered at the initial stage. However, if the Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and proceeds to hear on the merits of the case and later on holds it lacks jurisdiction it would not be possible to put the clock back and the precious time would be lost. With this object, Section 11(2) has been introduced. If it is only the issue regarding payment of Court fee, which does not effect the jurisdiction of the Court, the said argument holds good and not otherwise. What is contemplated under Section 11(2) is only with reference to the Court fee payable and whether it is properly valued or that the Court fee paid is insufficient. The consequence of such finding be given can also be noticed in the said sub-Section and also Sec. 4(3)(A) to (D). The mandate of that Section cloth the plaintiff with a right to sue that may be allowed by the Court trying the suit and only on payment of such Court fee, the rejection of the plaint can be made as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 11(c) and not otherwise. However, when the issue is raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, particularly with reference to the pecuniary jurisdiction, it cannot be held that issue regarding such determination of pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be considered by the Court below after commencement of recording of the evidence in as much as the jurisdiction would be foundation for trying the suit and when the very foundation cannot be laid or crumbles down on account of plaint averments, it cannot be held that such an issue cannot be determined after the commencement of the recording of the evidence. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to Sec.11(2), that trial Court ought not have embarked upon considering the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction after commencement of the evidence cannot be accepted and accordingly, it is rejected. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel with regard to Sec.11(2), that trial Court ought not have embarked upon considering the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction after commencement of the evidence cannot be accepted and accordingly, it is rejected. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that under Sec.11(2) of the K.C.F. and S.V. Act, the issue regarding Court fee has to be adjourned before the evidence being recorded cannot be accepted when the issue regarding jurisdiction is raised. 17. In the valuation slip dated 15/19-11/2001 filed by the plaintiff, suit has been valued under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, for declaration and possession and the declaratory relief that is sought for by the plaintiff is to declare that sale deed dated 24.12.1989 is null and void. The natural corollary would be that plaintiff ought to have paid the Court fee in respect of the consideration depicted in the sale deed irrespective of the extent of claim made qua property stated in the sale deed, in as much as the suit schedule property has not been divided and it is undivided share comprised in the property described in the sale deed dated 24.12.1989. The Court below on considering this fact noticed that prayer made in the plaint is for the relief of declaration to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by declaring the sale deed dated 24.12.1989 registered as document No.7098 as null and void. In the instant case, plaintiff has sought for declaration of the sale deed in its entirely and consequently has sought for declaring the said sale deed would not be binding in respect of the plaintiffs rights over the suit schedule property, which is to an extent of 04 guntas. A sale deed cannot be declared as null and void in a piece meal that to the extent of suit schedule property only. The one and only course left open to the Court adjudicating the said issue is to declare either that the sale deed is null and void as a whole or otherwise and not in bits and pieces as contended by the plaintiff. 18. The one and only course left open to the Court adjudicating the said issue is to declare either that the sale deed is null and void as a whole or otherwise and not in bits and pieces as contended by the plaintiff. 18. In the instant case, an additional issue came to be framed on 02.12.2009 and on further hearing of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, an order came to be passed on 03.02.2010, which is found to be in consonance with the pleadings of the parties. The other aspect, which requires to be noticed is with reference to Order 14 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under: Order XIV Settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon 1. Framing of issue - ******* 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.-(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. A perusal of Order 14 Rule 2 shows that it is permissible for the Court to try a particular issue as preliminary issue if it is of the opinion that case, or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only and that issue in question relates to jurisdiction of Court or a bar to the suit created by any law. It is held that nature of lease forms preliminary issue of law in the case B. Vishwanatha Shetty –vs- P.N. Padmavathi, ILR 1992 (3) Kar 2424 =1992 (3) KLJ 330, wherein it is held as follows: “18. It is necessary to remember here that ………………………………………. It is held that nature of lease forms preliminary issue of law in the case B. Vishwanatha Shetty –vs- P.N. Padmavathi, ILR 1992 (3) Kar 2424 =1992 (3) KLJ 330, wherein it is held as follows: “18. It is necessary to remember here that ………………………………………. suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would go to show that it is permissible for the Court to try a particular issue as a preliminary issue if the Court is of the opinion that the case, or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only and that the issue in question relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any law.” 19. Thus a piece meal trail would lead to protracted litigation. The Courts are bound to adjudicate the issue when framed and pronounce its finding upon all the issues framed. However, that does not deter the Court in trying the issue regarding jurisdiction since the very foundation of the suit depends upon the jurisdiction to try the suit, either territorial or pecuniary and when it is brought to the notice of the Court at any stage of the suit, if it is to be found that the plaint cannot be adjudicated upon for want of either jurisdiction and also on the ground that decree that may ultimately be passed would become a nullity on the premises that consent does not confer jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Court below was justified in directing the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff to present it before the jurisdictional Court. The principal relief is for declaration of particular document/deed/instrument, which reflects consideration and to declare that document as a valid document. Plaintiff ought to have valued the suit under Section 24(a) of the K.C.F. and S.V. Act and pay the necessary Court fee on such consideration as reflected in the deed or document. The principal relief is for declaration of particular document/deed/instrument, which reflects consideration and to declare that document as a valid document. Plaintiff ought to have valued the suit under Section 24(a) of the K.C.F. and S.V. Act and pay the necessary Court fee on such consideration as reflected in the deed or document. The decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances for the following reasons: Regarding (i): 1984 KLJ 97 (Umarabba-vs-Pathunni and others), in the said case, the contention of the revision petitioner with regard to the valuation was of two fold, namely, (i) valuation of the subject matter in regard to the jurisdiction and (ii) valuation of the subject matter for payment of Court fee. This Court considering Section 11(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act found on facts that issue regarding Court fee could not have been considered since the evidence had already been recorded on all issues and in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 11(2), it held that the issue regarding Court fee cannot be tried as a preliminary issue. In the instant case, the issue is regarding the jurisdiction, which has been considered by the Court below and hence said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Regarding (ii): AIR 1987 SC 2085 (Smt. Tara Devi -vs- Sri. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Chandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and another). In the said case, it was held that valuation made by the plaintiff is accepted as proper valuation. There is no dispute with regard to this proposition. However, when the Court fee is payable on the basis of valuation and if said valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the said proposition would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Regarding (iii): AIR 2007 AP 57 (Yanala Malleshwari W/o. Y. Yadagiri Reddy etc.etc. – vs- Smt. Ananthula Sayamma w/o Late Gopaiah and another etc. etc.) In the said case, the prayer was sought to declare two instruments executed and registered as null and void. The trail Court held that plaintiff has to pay court fee on both instruments. Regarding (iii): AIR 2007 AP 57 (Yanala Malleshwari W/o. Y. Yadagiri Reddy etc.etc. – vs- Smt. Ananthula Sayamma w/o Late Gopaiah and another etc. etc.) In the said case, the prayer was sought to declare two instruments executed and registered as null and void. The trail Court held that plaintiff has to pay court fee on both instruments. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that in the facts and circumstances of the said case that second document which was sought for being declared as null and void was held is a consequential relief and sale therein was by reason of fraud and accordingly held that Court fee paid on the principal document would be sufficient and payment of Court fee in respect of a consequential relief claim would not arise. The principle enunciated in the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as, in the instant case it is the principal document itself namely sale deed dated 24-12-1989 which is sought for being declared as null and void by the plaintiff himself and hence Court fee has to be paid on the said document without splitting, bifurcating or dissecting it. 20. Though learned Senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, (Jr Dn) is now extended upto Rs.5,00,000/-and the value of 5 guntas of land being less than Rs.5,00,000/-, the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) would have jurisdiction to try the suit cannot be accepted for the reason: it has been held hereinabove that the suit is for declaration of the sale deed dated 24-12-1989 whereunder the consideration reflected in the document therein is Rs.18,54,100/-and as such the consideration shown in this document which is sought for being declared as null and void exceeds 5,00,000/-and thus pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) gets extinguished. Hence, the order of the trail Court ordering for the plaint being returned to be presented before jurisdictional Court does not suffer from any infirmity and is hereby confirmed. 21. Be that as it may, when the issue regarding jurisdiction is raised with reference to Court fee payable and determination thereof would touch upon the jurisdiction of Court to try the suit, would not prevent such Court from examining, scrutinizing and adjudicating the same as a preliminary issue since the issue regarding jurisdiction is the foundation of any suit. 21. Be that as it may, when the issue regarding jurisdiction is raised with reference to Court fee payable and determination thereof would touch upon the jurisdiction of Court to try the suit, would not prevent such Court from examining, scrutinizing and adjudicating the same as a preliminary issue since the issue regarding jurisdiction is the foundation of any suit. In this context, it would be necessary to observe that Order 14 Rule 2 empowers the Court to try a issue as preliminary issue if it relates to jurisdiction. As seen from Rule 2(a) the Court trying a suit is empowered to try the issue first which relates to the jurisdiction of the Court since the continuation of proceedings and adjudicating on merits if found to be without jurisdiction would not only result in repetitive litigation or multiplicity of proceedings, but it would also save the precious time of all the parties to the lis including that of the Court. Hence it has to be held that when an issue regarding Court fee is raised it requires to be examined as a preliminary issue if it would have a direct bearing on the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. In view of the above discussion, Point No.1 herein is answered in negative holding that the issue regarding jurisdiction with reference to the Court fee can be determined by the Trail Court in exercise of its powers under order 14 Rule 2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as it would go to the root of the matter. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered as above. Point No.2: In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any error either on law or on facts and hence the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. The order passed by the Court below in O.S.No.659/2001 dated 03.02.2010 is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs. CDJ Law Journal