S. RAMAIAH Vs. K. RAMESH RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading up to these petitions are as follows:

(2.) The petitioners are said to be owners of lands measuring 7 acre and 10 guntas in lands bearing Survey Nos.1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/7 of Nagarbhavi village, Yeshwanthpur hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The petitioners are said to have executed three agreements of sale, dated 19.11.1981, 21.12.1981 and 25.3.1982, respectively, in respect of the said lands in favour of one, Kendriya Upadhyara Sangha.

(3.) The learned counsel Shri P.D.Surana, appearing for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are aggrieved by the determination of the court fee sought to be made on the market value of the suit properties. Whereas the court fee would be payable on the consideration received under the agreements of sale. It is elaborated that the agreements envisaged that the lands in question would be acquired by the State, at the instance of the Sangha, for the benefit of the Sangha and its members to facilitate a housing scheme envisaged by the Sangha, hence without this first step being ushered in, the permissive possession delivered under the agreements of sale, did not confer any right or authority to deal with land or put any third-parties in possession of the same. With the termination of the agreements, the notional and permissive possession in favour of the Sangha as a licencee and the prayer for redelivery of possession is sought as a matter of form and is not made as would be contemplated in a suit seeking to establish a disputed title and consequent recovery of actual physical possession. The court below has failed to distinguish between the circumstance of an undisputed owner seeking formal redelivery of notional possession from a licencee of vacant land and that of a plaintiff seeking to establish his disputed title and seeking to recover actual physical possession from a defendant. It is contended that the provision of law, under which the suit was valued was incorrectly stated and was sought to be corrected by recourse to the amendment application, which has been unfairly rejected thereby seeking to pin the petitioners to a position which is divorced from the actual position.