HAUNSAKKA ALIAS INDIRABAI Vs. KRISHNAJI CHINTAMANRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question as to whether the Court-fee payable in the plaint in O.S. No. 32/1981 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum is under Section 35(1) or 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as to whether a direction to pay additional Court-fee is revisable have arisen for consideration in this revision petition. The brief facts, leading to this revision petition, are as under:

(2.) Sy. Nos. 10, 50/1, 50/2 and other Survey numbers referred to in the plaint para 2 situate in Belgaum Taluk in Belgaum District were the properties belonging to the joint family of Shrinivas Nadagouda. The said properties came under the management of the State of Karnataka for the period from 6-5-1930 to 15-7-1953. The present defendant-1 Krishnaji Chintamanrao Nadagouda along with some other members of Nadagouda family filed O.S. No. 231/1956 against the State of Karnataka for the accounts relating to the properties in question. A preliminary decree was passed on 28-2-1962. Thereafter the present defendant-1, Krishnaji Chintamanrao Nadagouda prayed for Rs. 3,28,359-00 together with interest at 6% p.a. from 31-10-1962 and a final decree came to be passed on 23-3-1978. The present defendant-1 represented the branch of plaintiff in the said suit. According to plaintiff she has got l/4th share in the same, therefore, she filed a suit for partition of her l/4th share in the said amount which is said to be in deposit in Court.

(3.) The suit was resisted by defendant-1 in the written statement on various grounds. One of the grounds urged in the written statement is that the Court-fee paid on the plaint is not sufficient. On the basis of the pleadings, the lower Court raised seven issues for decision. Out of them, Issue No. 6 was an issue relating to the question as to whether the Court-fee paid is proper and sufficient and the same was heard as a preliminary issue. The learned Civil Judge, for the reasons recorded in his impugned order, took the view that the fixed Court-fee of Rs. 200/- paid on the plaint is not sufficient, since in his view the Court-fee is required to be paid under Section 35(1) of the Act. He, therefore, by the said order directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court-fee on Rs. 1,79,952-90 ps. Hence, the instant revision petition by the plaintiff.