NINGAPPA KARABASAPPA SHLVANAGUTTL Vs. AMRAPPA KARABASAPPA SHIVANAGUTTL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in these three civil revision petitions, petitioners are all plaintiffs in suits brought by them for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. Defendants raised objections in regard to correctness of the valuation for the purpose of court fee and in the light of the said objection, the courts-below proceeded to decide the question of adequacy of court fee as preliminary issue under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

(2.) id all the three cases the trial courts have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are bound to pay court fee in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the said act and not under sub-section (2) of the said section. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are preferred. These bare facts are not in dispute.

(3.) the counsel for respondent in civil revision petition No. 6451 of 1990 drew my at- tention to a decision of this court rendered by a learned single judge in the case of mohammed omar v saravan bi and others, 1974(1) KAR. Lj, 27. In the said decision, the learned single judge has held that: