BHIMANGOUDA MALLIKARJUNGOUDA DHARANAPPAGOUDAR Vs. GOLANGOUDA ADIVEPPAGOUDA HONNAWAD
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BHIMANGOUDA MALLIKARJUNGOUDA DHARANAPPAGOUDAR
GOLANGOUDA ADIVEPPAGOUDA HONNAWAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This is a plaintiff's revision petition in which he complains against the
order made by the Munsiff calling upon him to pay ad valorem court-fee
on the suit brought by him for a decree for eviction against two defendants,
who, according to him, were his tenants. The plaintiff's case was that
under a tenancy which was created by his great grand-father the defendants
continued to be his tenants and that they are liable to deliver possession
of the leased property to him. Both the defendants denied the tenancy
and defendant-2 set up his own title to the suit property. But the plaintiff
contended that since the suit was brought on the basis of a lease, court-fee
was payable only under Sec.41(2) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits
Valuation Act, and that no higher court-fee was pavabe by him. But the
Munsiff thought that since defendant-2 set up an independent title in himself,
court-fee should be paid as if the suit brought by the plaintiff was one
for recovery of the property on the basis of his title.
(2.)What was overlooked by the Munsiff was that for purposes of quantification
of the court-fee payable, the court should look into the allegations
in the plaint whatever may be the allegations in the written statement.
The nature of the suit should be judged by what the plaintiff says and not
by what the defendant says. Looked at in that way, the suit brought by
the plaintiff was clearly one for the recovery of Immovable property from
a tenant governed by S.41 (2) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation
(3.)So, I set aside the order of the Munsiff and hold that the court-fee paid
by the plaintiff is sufficient. The Munsiff will now proceed to decide the
suit in accordance with law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.