DHONDUBAI Vs. FAKIRAPPA HANAMANTAPPA MEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in a suit filed for declaration and injunction is questioning the order of the first Appellate Courtaccepting the valuation and Court Fee paid by the plaintiff as correct.

(2.) ). The suit is one for declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, declaring the sale in favour of the plaintiff is null and void and to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner. The plaintiff has paid a fixed Court fee of Rs. 100/- under Section 24 (c) of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

(3.) ON the objection by the defendant, the trial Court considered that Section 24 (b) alone is applicable and refusing to rely upon the case of AIR 1993 Andh Pra 225 (sic), in the case of Karnataka Electricity Board v. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. , (1989) 1 Kant LJ 306 and in the case of Shantabai v. Manik Rao Panduranga Rao, (1968) 2 Mys LJ 273 : (AIR 1969 Mysore 255), held that Section 24 (b) is applicable. Consequently the value of the property is more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court and directed to return to the proper Court.