Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 158 (KAR)

Sree Reddy Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Ramesh

2022-02-07

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following relief: 1.1 "Issue the Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction by quashing of Order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore in O.S.No......./2016 F.R.No.0000669/2016 dtd. 30/4/2016 Annexure-B and uphold the valuation made by the plaintiff in the said suit and to pass any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deemed fit under the circumstance of the case. 2. In the said suit, office of the Trial Court raised an objection that since cancellation of sale deeds have been sought for, separate valuation had to be done on each of the sale deeds. That not having been done and the Court fee paid on the aggregate value of the sale deeds, there is a deficit court fee of Rs.11,12,723.00. 3. This office objection was considered by the Trial Court. Though Sec. 6 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the KCFSV Act') had been brought to the notice of the Trial Court, the Trial Court being of the opinion that though the sale deeds were executed on the same day, but since they were relating to different properties in the names of different persons, the plaintiff having sought for cancellation of each of the sale deeds, there was a requirement for the relief in respect of each of the sale deeds to be valued separately. That not having been done, there was an undervaluation and deficit court fee has to be paid and directed the plaintiff to make payment of the deficit court fee. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Sri K.V. Shyama Prasada, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that if the petitioner has sought for cancellation of eight different sale deeds, the said sale deeds were executed by the defendant No.2 as a power of attorney holder in favour of himself and his wife - defendant No.3 (five in favour of defendant No.2 and three in favour of defendant No.3). The grievance of the plaintiff / petitioner is that defendant No.2 could not have exercised his rights under a power of attorney when there were disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 between whom there was a loan transaction and this power of attorney was only executed as a security. The grievance of the plaintiff / petitioner is that defendant No.2 could not have exercised his rights under a power of attorney when there were disputes between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 between whom there was a loan transaction and this power of attorney was only executed as a security. This being the cause of action, the exercise of powers by defendant No.2 being improper, a challenge had been made for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by defendant No.2 in his own favour as well as in favour of defendant No.3 and as such, Sec. 6 of the KCFSV Act would apply. 5. Per contra, Sri M.D. Basavanna, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, would submit that there are distinct prayers seeking for cancellation of distinct sale deeds, which relate to distinct properties and therefore, separate court fee is liable to be paid on each of the sale deeds and on this basis, the objection raised by the office of the Trial Court which was rightly upheld by the Trial Court is proper and correct and does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 6. Heard Sri K.V. Shyama Prasada, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.D. Basavanna, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Before I refer to the facts of the matter, it would be required to refer to Sec. 6 of the KCFSV Act, which is reproduced as under: "6. Multifarious suits.- (1) In any suit in which separate and distinct reliefs based on the same cause of action are sought, the plaint shall be chargeable with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs: Provided that, if a relief is sought only as ancillary to the main relief, the plaint shall be chargeable only on the value of the main relief. (2) Where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees leviable on the reliefs. (2) Where more reliefs than one based on the same cause of action are sought in the alternative in any suit, the plaint shall be chargeable with the highest of the fees leviable on the reliefs. (3) Where a suit embraces two or more distinct and different causes of action and separate reliefs are sought based on them, either alternatively or cumulatively, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees with which plaints would be chargeable under this Act if separate suits were instituted in respect of the several causes of action: Provided that, where the causes of action in respect of reliefs claimed alternatively against the same person arise out of the same transaction, the plaint shall be chargeable only with the highest of the fees chargeable on them. Nothing in this sub-sec. shall be deemed to affect any power conferred upon a Court under Rule 6 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908). (4) The provisions of this sec. shall apply mutatis mutandis to memoranda of appeals, applications, petitions and written statements Explanation.- For the purpose of this Sec. , a suit for possession of immovable property and for mesne profits shall be deemed to be based on the same cause of action." 8. Sec. 6 of the KCFSV Act relates to multifarious suits, more particularly, Sec. 6(1) deals with suits in which separate and distinct reliefs are sought on the basis of the same cause of action and mandates that the plaint shall be charged with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs. 9. In the present case, as submitted by Sri K.V.Shyama Prasada, the transaction essentially between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is that of a loan transaction for which eight properties, which are the subject matter of eight sale deeds, were given as security by executing a power of attorney in favour of defendant No.2 therein. 10. The cause of action para reads as under: "36. 10. The cause of action para reads as under: "36. The cause of action for the suit arose on 17/3/2014 when the registered sale agreements were executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as security for the loan, 31/10/2015 when the sale deeds were registered by the defendants fraudulently, on all other dates when the demands made by the plaintiff for cancellation of sale deeds and defendants failure to execute the cancellation of sale deeds inspite of demands from the plaintiff." 11. The reliefs which have been sought for in the suit read as under: "a. By cancelling the following eight sale deeds pertaining to the Schedule 'B' properties i) Sale deed dt: 31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No.2 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:GF-002 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore ii) Sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No:2 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:GF-008 of Sree Sun Moon Project, registered at document No:11241/2015-16 stored in CD No.392 Book No.I in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. iii) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of second defendant as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:GF-010 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. iv) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No.2 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:SF-209 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. v) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No.2 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:SF-210 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. vi) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No.3 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:SF-201 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. vii) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No.3 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:TF-303 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. vii) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of Defendant No.3 as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:TF-303 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered at document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. viii) sale deed dt:31/10/2015 standing in the name of third defendant as purchaser in respect of flat bearing No:GF-005 of Sree SunMoon Project, registered as document in the Office of Sub-Registrar Shivaji Nagar (Banaswadi) Bangalore. b. Consequently grant permanent injunctions restraining the defendants or any body claiming under them from from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff or anybody claiming under it. c. To grant cost of this suit d. To grant such other necessary relief for reliefs as this honourable court to deem fit under the circumstance of the case in the interest of Justice and equity." 12. As observed above, the sale deeds were executed by defendant No.2, power of attorney, in favour of himself (five in number) and his wife - defendant No.3 (three in number). The transaction being that of a loan and the power of attorney having been issued under the said loan transaction, rights of power of attorney being exercised in terms of an alleged default of the loan and sales having been executed intra family i.e., father of defendant No.1, who is the power of attorney holder, in favour of himself and his wife defendant No.3, I am of the considered view that the reliefs for cancellation of sale deeds which are being sought for arose out of the same cause of action. Merely because the properties are distinct would not take away the benefit conferred by Sec. 6(1) of the KCFSV Act. 13. Situation would have been different if the sale deeds had been executed in favour of third parties since the cause of action would vary and be different in respect of any third party. Here, the sale deeds have been executed amongst the defendants themselves who belong to the same family and at the cost of repetition, it arose out of a loan transaction. 14. There being no third party interest created and no third party rights required to be determined, the only lis which is to be determined is one between the plaintiff and defendants as one block, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit under Sec. 6(1) of the KCFSV Act, would be applicable. 14. There being no third party interest created and no third party rights required to be determined, the only lis which is to be determined is one between the plaintiff and defendants as one block, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit under Sec. 6(1) of the KCFSV Act, would be applicable. In view thereof, I pass the following: ORDER 14.1 A Certiorari is issued. 14.2 The impugned order dtd. 30/4/2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in O.S. No..../2016 (F.R. No.O.S./0000669/2016) is hereby quashed. 14.3 The said Court is directed to register the suit and proceed therewith after ascertaining if the aggregate court fee paid on the consideration shown in each of the sale deeds is proper and correct and has been determined in terms of Sec. 38 of the KCFSV Act. 14.4 The Petition is allowed.