Y N KONDA REDDY Vs. NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the present writ petition against the order dated 29.08.2016 made in O.S.No.3483/2005 on the file of the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, passed on preliminary issue i.e., additional issue No.1, directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule property under Section 7(2)(d) r/w Section 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, within one month from the date of the order.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.3483 of 2005 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule A property; to direct the defendant Nos.5 to 10 and 16 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule B property and to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants coolies, workers or anybody claiming under them or through them from interfering with the plaintiff s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule A property by granting a decree of permanent injunction, contending that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.81/2 presently, Sy.No. 81/3 after being phodied, measuring 1 acre 7 guntas, excluding kharab 6 guntas situated at Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, having acquired under a registered sale deed dated 01.03.2004, morefully described in schedule A to the plaint. In view of the discrepancy crept in with regard to the boundaries of the schedule under the sale deed dated 01.03.2004, the vendors of the schedule property executed a registered rectification deed dated 29.03.2004 in favour of the plaintiff rectifying the defects by mentioning the correct boundaries thereto.

(3.) The defendant No.1 filed the written statement, denied the plaint averments and contended that admittedly, the alleged sale deeds in the schedule B property to the defendants bit by bit in the capacity of sites have never been converted from agricultural land to non agricultural one and the suit schedule property is still an agricultural land. The said fact is evident by the revenue documents. The defendants 1 to 3 never executed any kind of alleged GPA pertaining to the schedule A or schedule B property in favour of defendant No.4 to transact with this properties. Admittedly, the defendants 5 to 10 and others filed suit against the defendants 1 to 4 and the plaintiff, for the relief of permanent injunction on the strength of the created and concocted sale deeds and the said suits are pending.