Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in a partition suit (O.S. No. 53/2010) pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order dated 30.11.2017. The trial court had answered an additional issue regarding court fee valuation in the negative, holding that the suit was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of plaint 'A' schedule properties into five equal shares, valuing the properties at Rs.15,00,000/- for both court fee and jurisdiction, and paid a court fee of Rs.200/-. The defendants contended that the valuation was inadequate and that the suit was undervalued. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, observed that the plaintiff's valuation in a partition suit is ordinarily accepted unless it is shown to be improper or fraudulent. The court noted that the trial court had correctly applied the law and that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Fee Valuation - Partition Suit - Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - The trial court answered the additional issue on court fee valuation in the negative, holding that the suit was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the plaintiff's valuation is ordinarily accepted unless shown to be improper or fraudulent. The writ petition was dismissed as no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-4)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Interference with Interlocutory Orders - The High Court held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to correcting every error of fact or law. The trial court's order on court fee valuation was a discretionary order and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in holding that the suit for partition was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction, and whether the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be entertained against such an interlocutory order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the trial court's order on court fee valuation was correct and that no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Court fee valuation in partition suits
- Section 35(2) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
- 1958
- plaintiff's valuation binding unless shown to be improper
- writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India
- scope of interference with interlocutory orders.
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (02) 27
Writ Petition No.5508/2018 (GM-CPC)
Reliance Prolific Traders Pvt. Ltd. (defendant Nos. 3 and 4)
Purandara Shetty and others (plaintiffs and other defendants)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an interlocutory order on court fee valuation in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendant Nos. 3 and 4) sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 30.11.2017 which held that the suit was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the trial court erred in holding that the suit was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction, as the valuation was allegedly inadequate.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi) passed the impugned order on 30.11.2017 on preliminary issues, answering the additional issue on court fee valuation in the negative, i.e., holding that the suit was properly valued.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in holding that the suit for partition was properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction?
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the trial court's order on court fee valuation?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the suit was undervalued and that the trial court's order was erroneous.
The respondents (plaintiffs) supported the trial court's order, contending that the valuation was proper.
Ratio Decidendi
In a partition suit, the plaintiff's valuation for court fee and jurisdiction is ordinarily accepted unless it is shown to be improper or fraudulent. The trial court's finding that the suit was properly valued was based on correct application of law and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, does not interfere with such discretionary orders unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 30.11.2017 passed on preliminary issues framed on 3.11.2015 answering the additional issue with regard to the Court fee as negative holding that the suit has been properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs filed the original suit for partition and separate possession of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties into five equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil and allotment of three such shares to them.
The value of the properties was for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- both for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and accordingly, Rs.200/-
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 53/2010 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Udupi, for partition. On 03.11.2015, preliminary issues were framed. On 30.11.2017, the trial court passed an order on the additional issue regarding court fee valuation, holding that the suit was properly valued. Aggrieved, the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 20.02.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958: Section 35(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
