MALLESHAPPA S/O. BASAVANEPPA SULLAD vs. RENUKA W/O. NAGARAJ KORI

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 30th Day of November 2012 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS WRIT PETITION NO.68952/2012 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. Malleshappa S/o. Basavaneppa Sullad, Age: 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Nidavani Layout, Yalakkishettar Colony, Dharwad. …PETITIONERS (By Sri.C.N.Harlapur, Adv.,) A N D : 1. Renuka W/o. Nagaraj Kori, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Badami, Dist: Bagalkot. 2. Vanamala W/o. Mallikarjun Tigadi, Age; 37 years, Occ:Household, R/o. Samalakha, New Delhi, Rep. by her P.A.holder, Plaintiff No.1.

: 2 : 3. Meenaxi W/o. Sagar Koshavar, Age: 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Hire Bagewadi, Tq and Dist: Belgaum. 4. Chandrashekhar S/o. Malleshappa Sullad, Age: 43 years, Occ: Lecturer, R/o. Dharwad. 5. Prabha W/o. Ashok Nidawani, Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Dharwad. ...RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Shriharsh A. Neelopant, Adv.,) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed in O.S. No.122/2011 dated 03.08.2012 vide Annexure- D, by the III Addl Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Dharwad and direct the Trial Court to hear issue No.3 as preliminary issue before proceedings on other issues. This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

: 3 : ORDER Respondent No.1 to three are the plaintiffs, petitioners and respondents 4 and 5 are the defendants before the Trial Court. In this order for convenience the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. 2. Plaintiffs filed O.S. No.122/2011 for partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties. After completion of the pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: «ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ 1. ªÁ¢gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ zÁªÁ D¹Û ªÁ¢ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢gÀ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹ÛAiÉÄAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 2. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÁ¢- 1jAzÀ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ zÁªÁ¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ -1£À ¸ÀéAiÀiÁfðvÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

: 4 : 3. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢-1jAzÀ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ºÉüÀĪÀAvÉ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀiÁr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀj¹gÀĪÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ±ÀÄ®Ì ¸Àj E®èªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ? 4. ªÁ¢gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ºÉüÀĪÀ zÁªÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ°è£À 1/7 ¨sÁUÀzÀ »¸Éì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÉÃ? 5. K£ÀÄ DzÉñÀ? CxÀªÁ rQæ? 3. Issue No.3 relates to valuation of the suit properties and payment of court fee. Under the impugned order, the Trial Court held that issue No.3 requires evidence. In the circumstances, the Trial Court held that issue No.3 can be decided with other issues framed in the suit at the final hearing. Having regard to the nature of prayer in the suit and the controversy involved in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the issue relating to valuation of the suit and payment of Court fee requires evidence. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in

: 5 : Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Kanpur etc., V/s Chander Sen etc., reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1753. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Chander Sen’s case was in relation to the payment of income tax and the same is no application to the present case. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE BS