LAWS(KAR)-2002-4-10

MAHADEV Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 04, 2002
MAHADEV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint in this case is that the doors of Temple of justice is closed to the poor agriculturists courtesy Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act of 1958 under Section 7 (2) (d ).

(2.) THE facts in W. P. No. 38076/1992 are as under: mahadev Narayan Naik is in possession of 1 acre 20 guntas in sy. No. 22/1 for more than 50 years. The said land belongs to hanumanth Tippayya Naik and his family. Adverse possession is claimed. The 2nd respondent Hanumanth Tippayya Naik obstructed the enjoyment of the suit lands and hence the petitioner was compelled to file a suit for in O. S. No. 47/90. The petitioner has paid the Court fee in terms of Section 7 (2) (a ). The respondent ? defendant entered appearance and contested the matter. They raised an issue with regard to Court Fee in terms of Section 7 (2) (d)and not in terms of Section 7 (2) (a ). The Trial Judge accepted the contention of the defendant. An unsuccessful petition was filed in this Court by the petitioner. In the light of the order of this Court, the petitioner is now challenging the very provision of Section 7 (2) (d)as unconstitutional.

(3.) W. P. NO. 42158/1993 is a petition again filed by the Society represented by a President Sister A. L. Mariella. She is the Superior-General of a Women?s Religious Congregation. According to the petition avernments, respondents 3 and 4 interfered with the possession of the petitioner to an extent of 21 guntas of land forming part of Survey No. 48/1 of Byrasandra Village, Bangalore. A suit came to be filed in O. S. No. 3006/1991. A Court Fee of Rs. 200/- was paid. The defendant entered appearance and raised an issue with regard to Court Fee. The Trial Judge accepted the plea of the defendant-respondent. The petitioner, in these circumstances is challenging Section 7 (2) (d), in so far as the Court fee at the rate of market value in respect of the land not having a definite share and not having a separate assessment is concerned as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.