JAGANNATH AMIN Vs. SEETHARAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Civil Revision Petition filed by the appellant.

(3.) Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalore, holding that Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short the Act) was applicable and not Section 35(2) of the said Act in a suit for partition relating to agricultural land. Originally the suit was filed by the appellants mother. She had filed the suit for partition of the scheduled property claiming that the same should be divided into two equal shares by metes and bounds through the process of Court. Plaintiff had filed suit under Section 7(2)(d) of the Act and paid court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Act. Four defendants filed written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed written statement separately. After hearing the appellant, learned First Additional Civil Judge framed several issues on 19.12.1998. Appellant contended before the trial court that being a co-owner under the law she is presumed to be in constructive possession of the property and as such court-fee is to be paid on the deemed market value and not on actual market value. Plaint scheduled property being agricultural property as such court-fee is valued under Section 7(2)(d) of the Act and she cannot be compelled to value the suit under Section 35(1) of the Act being a co-owner in respect of the plaint scheduled property along with the defendants. Defendants took the stand that the property is not agricultural property and is a house site and as such court-fee under Section 35(1) of the Act is to be paid on the actual market value and not on deemed market value.