Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1041 (KAR)

C. Prema v. Lakshmamma

2015-09-03

G.NARENDRA, N.KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Kumar, J. 1. This is a regular first appeal, challenging the order passed by the trial Court, allowing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC and directing the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and pay the deficit Court Fee under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short]. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred as they were referred to in the original suit. The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 1611/2012 against the defendants for a declaration that they are the absolute owners of "A and B"-schedule properties. They also sought for a declaration that the Sale Deeds executed in favour of the defendants are null and void and not binding on them and they are invalid, without the plaintiffs being the party to it. They also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of "A and B"-schedule properties. Suit "A"-schedule property is a land bearing Sy. No. 70, measuring 2 acres 25 guntas with 15 guntas karab land, situated at Kyalasanahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint as "A"-schedule property, which is also hereinafter referred to as "A"-schedule property. "B"-schedule property is an agricultural property bearing Sy. Nos. 77/1 and 77/2, totally measuring 4 acres and 1 gunta including 3 guntas karab land, situated at Kyalasanahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is also more particularly described in the schedule to the plaint as "B"-schedule property, which is also hereinafter referred to as "B"-schedule property. After service of summons, defendants entered appearance, filed written statement contesting the claim. They contended in the written statement that the valuation made by the plaintiffs is incorrect and denied that "B"-schedule property is any more an agricultural land. They specifically pleaded that after purchase of "B"-schedule property under different Sale Deeds between 18.11.1999 and 09.06.2004, they applied for conversion of the said agricultural land for non-agricultural land. By an Order dated 21.11.2008, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order converting the said land for non-agricultural purpose. Subsequently, necessary entries were made in the revenue records. They specifically pleaded that after purchase of "B"-schedule property under different Sale Deeds between 18.11.1999 and 09.06.2004, they applied for conversion of the said agricultural land for non-agricultural land. By an Order dated 21.11.2008, the Deputy Commissioner has passed an order converting the said land for non-agricultural purpose. Subsequently, necessary entries were made in the revenue records. In fact, the RTC furnished by the plaintiffs along with the plaint itself discloses that the said land is a converted land and therefore, they contended that the valuation of the suit in respect of the said land under Section 7 of the Act is incorrect and the same ought to have been valued under Section 24(a) of the Act. Thereafter, they filed an application I.A. No. 6 under Order VII Rule 11(c) CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is not properly valued. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned order holding that as on the date of suit was filed, "B"-schedule property has ceased to be an agricultural land, which was converted land and therefore, the valuation of the plaint is not proper. Section 7 of the Act is not attracted and therefore, directed the plaintiffs to correct the valuation and value the suit under Section 24(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants assailing the impugned order contended that firstly, the schedule to the plaint contains two schedules i.e., "A"-schedule and "B"-schedule. It is only "B"-schedule, which is converted for non-agricultural purpose by defendants 17 to 19. Therefore, the direction by the trial Court to value both "A" and "B"-schedule properties under Section 24(a) of the Act is illegal. Secondly, he contended that though an order of conversion is passed in respect of "B"-schedule property, the plaintiffs are not a party to the Sale Deed nor to the conversion order. The plaintiffs are claiming the ownership over agricultural land and therefore, valuation of the suit under Section 7 of the Act is proper and the trial Court was not justified in issuing the impugned direction. The plaintiffs are claiming the ownership over agricultural land and therefore, valuation of the suit under Section 7 of the Act is proper and the trial Court was not justified in issuing the impugned direction. Lastly, it is contended that the case of the plaintiffs is that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment as on the date of the suit. They are not seeking possession and therefore, the direction to value the suit under Section 24(a) of the Act is improper and valuation of the suit has to be done under Section 24(b) of the Act. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for defendants 17 to 19 submits that "B"-schedule property was purchased by them under 13 different Sale Deeds between 18.11.1999 and 09.06.2004. Thereafter, they have got the land converted vide the Deputy Commissioner's Order dated 21.11.2008 and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of "B"-schedule property and therefore, he submits that as the "B"-schedule property is non-agricultural land, Section 7 of the Act is not attracted and the order passed by the trial Court is well reasoned and do not call for any interference. 4. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the points that arise for our consideration are; 1) Whether valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and Jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act by the plaintiffs is proper? 2) Whether order of the trial Court directing payment of court fee under Section 24(a) of the Act in respect of both "A" and "B"-schedule properties is proper? 3) Whether the suit is to be valued under Section 24(a) or 24(b) of the Act? 5. POINT No. 1: The facts are not in dispute. Defendants 17 to 19 have purchased the "B"-schedule property under different Sale Deeds. The plaintiffs are seeking for a declaration that different Sale Deeds are not binding on them as they are not parties to the said transaction. After purchase under the Sale Deeds between 18.11.1999 and 09.06.2004, admittedly defendants 17 to 19 have applied for conversion of the land use to the Deputy Commissioner and ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner on 21.11.2008 has passed an order granting the conversion from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. The present suit is filed on 05.12.2012 nearly 4 years thereafter. After purchase under the Sale Deeds between 18.11.1999 and 09.06.2004, admittedly defendants 17 to 19 have applied for conversion of the land use to the Deputy Commissioner and ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner on 21.11.2008 has passed an order granting the conversion from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. The present suit is filed on 05.12.2012 nearly 4 years thereafter. In fact, the RTC produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint shows column No. 10 refers to conversion order. Therefore, on the day the suit was filed, "B"-schedule property was not an agricultural land. It had been converted for non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in holding that Section 7 of the Act is not attracted to "B"-schedule property and the said finding is in consonance with several Judgments on which reliance is placed by the trial Court. Therefore, we do not see any justification to interfere with the said finding on facts recorded by the trial Court. 6. POINT No. 2: The objections raised by defendants 17 to 19 only pertains to "B"-schedule property. This aspect has not been properly appreciated while considering the objections and the trial Court proceeded on the basis that both the schedule properties are converted for non-agricultural purpose, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, the trial Court committed a serious error in holding that both "A and B"-schedule properties are ceased to be agricultural land and directing the plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 24 of the Act. "A"-schedule property continues to be an agricultural land and therefore, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court fee under Section 7 of the Act in respect of "A"-schedule property is proper. To that extent, the finding of the trial Court is modified. 7. POINT No. 3: The plaintiffs have specifically averred in the plaint that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties notwithstanding the fact that the Sale Deeds have been entered into. Therefore, they have sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties and they have not sought for possession. Therefore, they have sought for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties and they have not sought for possession. Section 24 of the Act applies to a case where the party seeks the relief of declaration and for possession, where the fee payable is the market value of the property, whereas the relief sought is only declaration and not possession, but injunction, it ought to have been valued under Section 24(b) of the Act and the court fee is one-half of the market value of the property. This aspect has also been completely lost sight off by the trial Court. Therefore, to this extent, the trial Court's order requires to be interfered with. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. (a) The suit of the plaintiffs is to be valued under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. (b) Insofar as "A"-schedule property is concerned, they are at liberty to value the suit under Section 7 of the Act. (c) Insofar as "B"-schedule property is concerned, they shall value the suit under Section 24(b) of the Act. Ordered accordingly.