Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were plaintiffs in O.S.No.166/2006 before the II Civil Judge at Mysore, filed a suit for declaration that a palupatti dated 8.7.1973 is a forged, concocted, and invalid document and that it does not relate to the suit schedule items 1 and 2. They also sought a mandatory injunction directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Executive Officer, Mysore Taluk Panchayath and Secretary, Naganahally Grama Panchayath) to reverse, annul, and cancel the khatha entries made in respect of the suit schedule items based on the said palupatti and to enter the name of the first plaintiff in the khata. The plaintiffs are father and son, and the first defendant is the first son of the first plaintiff. They constitute a joint family. In 1973, the first plaintiff effected a partition of agricultural lands, which was reduced to writing on 5.7.1973. There is no dispute regarding that partition. The first defendant filed I.A.No.7 under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, contending that the plaintiffs had not properly valued the suit and paid court fee. The trial court allowed the application and directed the plaintiffs to value the suit property in accordance with the Act and pay the requisite court fee. The plaintiffs challenged this order in the writ petition. The High Court examined the nature of the suit and held that the plaintiffs do not seek any declaration of title or possession; they only seek a declaration that the palupatti is forged and not binding on them, and for consequential mandatory injunction to cancel the khatha entries. Such a relief is not capable of valuation. Therefore, Section 11(2) of the Act, which applies to suits for declaration with consequential relief where the subject matter is capable of valuation, is not attracted. Instead, the court fee is payable under Section 24(d) of the Act, which applies to suits for declaration where the plaintiff is not in possession and the relief is not capable of valuation. The High Court quashed the trial court's order and directed the trial court to decide the court fee issue afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Court Fees - Valuation of Suit - Section 11(2) vs. Section 24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Suit for declaration that a document is forged and not binding - The plaintiffs sought declaration that a palupatti dated 8.7.1973 is forged and invalid, and for mandatory injunction to cancel khatha entries based on it. The trial court allowed defendant's application under Section 11(2) directing plaintiffs to value the suit property and pay court fee. The High Court held that the relief sought is not capable of valuation as the plaintiffs do not seek any right in the property but only challenge the document. Therefore, court fee is payable under Section 24(d) of the Act, which applies to suits for declaration where the plaintiff is not in possession and the relief is not capable of valuation. The order of the trial court was quashed. (Paras 4-8)
B) Court Fees - Section 11(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Scope - Section 11(2) applies only when the plaintiff seeks a declaration with consequential relief and the subject matter is capable of valuation. In the present case, the plaintiffs' suit is for a declaration that a document is forged and for mandatory injunction to cancel entries; the plaintiffs do not seek any declaration of title or possession. Hence, Section 11(2) is not attracted. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was correct in directing the plaintiffs to value the suit property and pay court fee under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, when the plaintiffs sought a declaration that a document is forged and not binding on them, and for consequential relief of mandatory injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the II Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Mysore on I.A.No.7 in O.S.No.166/2006, and directed the trial court to decide the court fee issue afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.
Law Points
- Court fee valuation
- Section 11(2) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
- 1958
- Section 24(d) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
- declaration that document is forged
- relief not capable of valuation
- market value of property not relevant
- suit for declaration and mandatory injunction
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (04) 106
Writ Petition No. 361/2013 (GM-CPC)
Sri T.N. Raghupathy for petitioners; Sri Vijayananda for Sri P.N. Manmohan for R-1; Sri B.J. Somayaji for R-2 and R-3; Sri Vasanth V. Fernandiz, HCGP for State
Sri Jaware Gowda and N.J. Srinivasa
Sri Basavaraju. N.J., The Executive Officer, Mysore Taluk Panchayath, and The Secretary, Naganahally Grama Panchayath
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order of the trial court on court fee valuation in a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (plaintiffs) sought to quash the trial court's order dated 21.11.2012 in O.S.No.166/2006, which allowed I.A.No.7 filed by the first defendant under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, directing the plaintiffs to value the suit property and pay court fee.
Filing Reason
The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that a palupatti dated 8.7.1973 is forged and invalid, and for mandatory injunction to cancel khatha entries based on it. The trial court allowed the defendant's application under Section 11(2) of the Act, which the plaintiffs challenged as erroneous.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (II Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Mysore) allowed I.A.No.7 on 21.11.2012, directing the plaintiffs to value the suit property and pay court fee. This order was challenged in the writ petition.
Issues
Whether the trial court was correct in applying Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, to the suit for declaration that a document is forged and for mandatory injunction.
Whether the relief sought by the plaintiffs is capable of valuation for the purpose of court fee.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the suit is for a declaration that the palupatti is forged and not binding on them, and for consequential mandatory injunction. They do not seek any declaration of title or possession. Therefore, the relief is not capable of valuation and Section 11(2) is not applicable; instead, court fee is payable under Section 24(d) of the Act.
The respondents supported the trial court's order, contending that the plaintiffs seek a declaration with consequential relief and must value the suit property under Section 11(2).
Ratio Decidendi
When a plaintiff seeks a declaration that a document is forged and not binding on them, and for consequential mandatory injunction to cancel entries based on that document, the relief is not capable of valuation. Therefore, Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, which applies to suits for declaration with consequential relief where the subject matter is capable of valuation, is not attracted. Instead, court fee is payable under Section 24(d) of the Act, which applies to suits for declaration where the plaintiff is not in possession and the relief is not capable of valuation.
Judgment Excerpts
The plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition challenging the order passed by the trial Court allowing I.A. No. 7-an application filed by the 1st defendant under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and directing the plaintiffs to value the suit property in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and pay the requisite Court fee before proceeding further in the matter.
The case of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd plaintiff is the second son of the first plaintiff and the first defendant is the first son of the first plaintiff; they constitute a joint family.
The plaintiffs do not seek any declaration of title or possession. They only seek a declaration that the palupatti is forged and not binding on them. Such a relief is not capable of valuation. Therefore, Section 11(2) of the Act is not attracted. The court fee is payable under Section 24(d) of the Act.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.166/2006 before the II Civil Judge at Mysore. The first defendant filed I.A.No.7 under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, which was allowed by the trial court on 21.11.2012. The plaintiffs challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 361/2013 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 29.04.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958: Section 11(2), Section 24(d)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
