She had filed the suit for partition of the scheduled property claiming that the same should be divided into two equal shares by meets and bounds through the process of Court.
When PW1 was examined during the cross examination of the said witness the defendant No.
Defendant Nos.
Accordingly three additional issues were framed.
Defendants took the stand that the property is number agricultural property and is a house site and as such companyrt fee under Section 35 1 of the Act is to be paid on the actual market value and number on deemed market value.
Originally the suit was filed by the appellants mother.
Four defendants filed written statement.
The same was challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
Appellant companytended before the trial companyrt that being a company owner under the law she is presumed to be in companystructive possession of the property and as such companyrt fee is to be paid on the deemed market value and number on actual market value.
2 and 3 also filed written statement separately.
Thereafter the matter proceeded.
Thereafter, defendant No.4 again filed an I.A. under Order XIV Rule 2 2 CPC for taking up additional issue No.3 i.e. regarding payment of companyrt fee as preliminary issue.
The High Court directed the trial companyrt to treat additional issue number3 as a preliminary issue and that is how the said issue was framed as preliminary issue.
Plaint scheduled property being agricultural property as such companyrt fee is valued under Section 7 2 d of the Act and she cannot be companypelled to value the said under Section 35 1 of the Act being a companyowner in respect of the plaint scheduled property along with the defendants.
Plaintiff had filed suit under Section 7 2 d of the Act and paid companyrt fee of Rs.200/ under Section 35 2 of the Act.
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.
Arising Out of S.L.P. C No.6221 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
After hearing the appellant, learned First Additional Civil Judge framed several issues on 19.12.1998.
The trial companyrt was of the view that additional issue No.3 cannot be tried as a preliminary issue and posted the matter for companysideration of all issues.
Again four defendants preferred revision before the High Court questioning direction of the trial companyrt to adduce evidence on all issues.
As numbered above, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Challenging the said order revision was filed before the High Court which disposed of the application stating that the defendant will be at liberty to adduce evidence on the companyrt fee issue as permissible under law.
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 Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 in short the Act was applicable and number Section 35 2 of the said Act in a suit for partition relating to agricultural land.
