HANAMANT KEDAREPPA SURYAWANSHI Vs. VEERAPPA ANIKEPPA SOGALAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Belgaum. The facts that give rise to these appeals may briefly be stated thus: R.S.No.122 measuring 12 acres 23 guntas and P.KJ5 gunthas of Budihal village was acquired for the Malaprabha Project. In respect of this a compensation of Rs. 13417-29 Ps were paid to Hanmant Kedaileppa Suryavamshi, who is the common defendant in all the suits. The plaintiffs in these cases had separately claimed specific shares in this compensation amount in the trial Court on the ground that they were co-sharers along with the defendant. The defendant raised an objection that the plaintiffs without valuing the suits for the purpose of jurisdiction properly and without asking for a declaration for their specific shares in the land acquired and without paying proper court fee, the suits filed by them as such in the Munsiff Court cannot be entertained. A preliminary issue was raised namely, whether the defendant proves that the Munsiff Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suits ? The learned Munsiff directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to a proper Court holding that the valuation exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction. Aggrieved by that order, the plaintiffs preferred appeals to the Court of the Civil Judge, Belgaum, who by a common order held that the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs was correct, and their case falls within the scope of S.50(1) of the Court Fees Act (the Act) . In that view, he reversed the order of the Munsiff and directed the Munsiff to try the suits. Aggrieved by this decision the defendant has preferred these appeals.

(2.) The plaintiffs in these cases have claimed specific amount from the defendant basing their claim that they were co-sharers with the defendant and had specific share in the property acquired. Since they have claimed for specific amount in the suits, the plaint was valued for the purpose of Court fee, under S.21 of the Act. S.50(1) of the Act states that:

(3.) It was held that the relief for injunction was consequential since it was directed against the very consequences resulting from the income tax evasion, proceedings. Again, as the relief for possession cannot be given unless the income tax proceedings were declared void, that was also a consequential relief.