RENUKA MANGHNANI Vs. PEDDAKKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 7th defendant has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court on the preliminary issue regarding payment of Court Fee that the suit is properly valued under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short, 'the Act') and Court fee of Rs. 200/- paid on the memorandum of plaint is proper. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession and for declaration that the alienation made by the defendants in favour of a School is invalid. In the body of the plaint it is averred that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the plaint schedule property with the defendants. On the contrary, the School has filed detailed written statement and also produced photographs to show that there is an Engineering College building in the suit property and is not an agricultural land or a vacant land and contends that suit ought to have been valued either under Section 35(1) of the Act or under Section 24 of the Act and ad valorem Court fee should have been paid.

(2.) The Trial Court after considering the rival contentions was of the view that when in the plaint the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that they are in joint possession of the property and are entitled for a share, what the defendants' say in the written statement is not material; value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the plaint averments. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court has rightly held that issue in favour of the plaintiff. I do not see any justification to interfere with the said order, which is in accordance with law. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.