ALLABAKSH Vs. IMAM HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 121 of 2013. In the suit filed seeking declaration that he is the joint owner in possession of the suit land indicated in the plaint, valuation was made and Court fee was paid. The defendant on appearance, had taken up a contention that the valuation of the property and payment of Court fee is not as per the law and therefore Appropriate Court fee has to be paid. At the first instance, when the Court below passed an order on preliminary issue 4, a decision was rendered on the nature of the property and in that regard the contention put forth by the plaintiff that the property in question is an agricultural property had been rejected and it was held that the property in question is a non-agricultural property by referring to the documents produced therein. The order dated 16-1-2014 passed in that regard has attained finality. In that view, considering the property to be a non-agricultural property, valuation of the same was reckoned at Rs. 84 lakhs. Based on the same, keeping in view the nature of the relief sought in the plaint, the valuation was made in terms of Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Since it was found that an additional Court fee of Rs. 99,900/- has to be paid by the plaintiff, the Court below ordered to that effect.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order would contend that the Court below was not justified. The learned Counsel for the respondent would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the Court below.

(3.) In the background of the contentions, I have perused the order impugned herein.