GURU PRASAD Vs. S A RUDRARADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2, 3 and 5 have filed all these writ petitions. The first respondents in all these writ petitions have filed separate suits before the Trial Court. However, the reliefs claimed by the 1st respondents in all the suits are as under:

(2.) THE prayers in all these suits filed by the 1st respondents are identical. In this regard, the plaintiffs treated the suit schedule properties as agricultural lands and initially valued the suit under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') and paid Court fee of Rs. 75/-. Defendants filed their written statement, apart from denying the plaintiffs claim they also questioned the valuation and the Court fees paid by the plaintiff. As a result, a question arose as regards calculation of Court fee for the relief sought in the suits. In this regard, an application for direction to pay proper Court fee was also filed, inter alia alleging that the suits are one for cancellation of decrees and they fall under Section 38 of the Act and market value has to be determined as on the date of suit and also under Section 26(a) of the Act. In this regard, the Trial Court had directed the office to determine proper Court fee. On determination of Court fee, the plaintiffs have paid Court fee of Rs. 87,125/- under Section 24(d) of the Act. THEreafter, the Trial Court framed issues and issue 3 in O.S. Nos. 1336 of 2006 and 1335 of 2006 and issue 4 in O.S. No. 1337 of 2006 was "whether defendants 2, 4, 5 prove that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?"

(3.) THE learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the alleged sale deed is dated 30-7-2004, whereas the suits are filed in the year 2006. THE Court fee to be paid is based on the value as on the date of suit and not as on the date of transaction.