AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.—The revision is taken up for final disposal by consent.
The revision petition is filed by the defendant aggrieved by the dismissal of an application for appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the present market value of the suit property u/S. 18 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Section 18 of the said Act reads as follows:
". . .18. Inquiry and commission:--For the purpose of deciding whether the subject-matter of a suit or other proceeding has been properly valued or whether the fee paid is sufficient, the Court may hold such inquiry as it considers proper and may, if it thinks fit, issue a commission to any proper person directing him to make such local or other investigation as may be necessary and to report thereon to the Court."
2-A. In fact in ILR 1982 Kar 970 (sic) in the case of Ramakrishna v. C.S.I., this Court has held that the Court has power to enquire regarding Court-fee on market value, even if the issues are framed and evidence was being recorded.
Such is the position of law. The discretion given to the Trial Court to decide about the correctness of the value of the relief claimed in the plaint. It is certainly open to the petitioner to question the same and an application has been filed with same regard. The Court cannot reject the same. It is duty- bound to appoint a Commissioner to go and verify the value of the property so that the proper Court-fee is collected on such value.
In this view, the impugned order is set aside and the CRP is allowed directing the Trial Court to appoint a Commissioner to ascertain the present market value of the suit property.