M V CHAYAPATHI RAO Vs. M V SATHYANARAYANARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This revision petition coming up for orders is taken up for final hearing and disposed of. The counsel for the parties have been heard.

(2.) The facts leading to this revision petition may be briefly stated and they are as follows: Petitioners are the plaintiffs in original Suit No. 4229 of 1984 on the file of the 18th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. They filed the suit inter-alia alleging that the suit schedule properties A and B are the self acquired properties of the father of the first and second plaintiff and husband of the third plaintiff and that the first defendant was squating on the property with his family and collecting rents from schedule A properly and utilising the rent all for himself to the exclusion of the other sharers and therefore, they prayed for a decree for partition of the suit schedule properties .by metes and bounds and for putting them in separate possession thereof.

(3.) The first defendant in his written statement contended inter- alia first that he purchased the shares of the plaintiffs, that he had performed the marriages of some of the plaintiffs, bearing all the expenses namely plaintiffs 4 and 5 and he had incurred a large amount as expense for repairs of the building in schedule B property and that the plaintiffs had no right whatsoever to claim share in the properties; that they had grossly under valued their relief seeking separate possession. Therefore, the suit should be valued under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and payment of fixed court fee of Rs. 200/- has wholely untenable and such an issue should be framed in regard to under valuation and non-payment of adequate Court fee and that should be decided first.