Karnataka High Court
Sri. H.B.Mallikarujunaiah vs Sri.H.C. Siddalingaswamy on 2 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50285
WP No. 22636 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 22636 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI H.B. MALLIKARUJUNAIAH
S/O LATE BASAVALINGARADYA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.48, "JANGAM"
9TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BINNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040
AADHAR NO.260893977933
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
a. SMT. M.B. LALITHAMBA
W/O LATE SRI H.B. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.48, "JANGAM"
9TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BINNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 040.
by NANDINI M
S
Location: b. SMT. H.M. RAJESHWARI
HIGH COURT W/O P. SHIVAPRAKASH
OF D/O SRI H.B. MALLIKARJUNAIAH
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.48, "JANGAM"
9TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BINNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. SRI H.B. SHASHIBHUSHANAIAH
@ SHASHIBHUSHAN
S/O LATE BASAVALINGARADYA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
BHAJANEMANE BEDDI
WARD NO.2, RAMANAGARA ROAD
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50285
WP No. 22636 of 2019
HC-KAR
KANAKAPURA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
AADHAR NO.985096191905
AND ALSO AT RESIDING AT NO.48
"JANGAM", 9TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE
BINNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAMESHCHANDRA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI H.C. SIDDALINGASWAMY
S/O LATE H.B.CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
2. SMT. KANTHAMMA
W/O LATE H.B. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
3. SMT. H.C. POORNIMA
D/O LATE H.B. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
4. SMT. VIJAYAKUMARI
D/O LATE H.B. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT HULIKUNTE VILLAGE
DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK.
5. SRI PALANETHRAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HARALUR POST TUMAKUR
TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT.
6. M/S MERUSHIKHAR REALTY LLP
A COMPANY INCORPORATE UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS
CORPORATE OFFICE AT "SOLUS"
FLOOR, 11, NO.2, 1ST CROSS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50285
WP No. 22636 of 2019
HC-KAR
J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DESIGNATED PARTNER
SRI KISHORE KUMAR.
7. G. MALLIKARJUNAPPA HALAMMA TRUST
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.23
2ND FLOOR,PAMADI TOWER
1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 09
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.S. MURALI, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-5,
V/O DTD 13.12.2019, NOTICE TO R-6 & R-7 H/S)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-A
DTD26.4.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR
DIVISION, DODDABALLAOUR WHILE PASSING ORDER ON I.A.NO.II
IN O.S.NO.86/2019 IN RESPECT OF DIRECTION TO PAY THE COURT
FEE OF RS.2,47,125/- +1/2 % THE REMAINING AMOUNT EXCEEDING
RS.80 LAKHS AS PER ARTICLE 16 OF THE SCHEDULE OF KARNATAKA
COURT FEE AND SUIT VALUATION ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Plaintiffs are before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 26.04.2019 passed on IA.No.2 in O.S.No.86/2019 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, in so far as it relates to directing them to pay court fee of Rs.2,47,125/- + 1/2% the remaining amount -4- NC: 2025:KHC:50285 WP No. 22636 of 2019 HC-KAR exceeding Rs.80 lakhs as per Article 16 of the 1st Schedule of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioners have filed O.S.No.86/2019 before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Doddaballapur, seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and also to declare the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2015 executed by plaintiff nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant no.1 as void document, and to cancel the same.
4. In the said suit, the contesting defendants have filed their written statement opposing the suit claim.
5. IA.No.2 was filed by defendant no.1 under Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to reject the plaint in O.S.No.86/2019. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs.
6. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, while rejecting IA.No.2 filed by defendant no.1, has passed the impugned -5- NC: 2025:KHC:50285 WP No. 22636 of 2019 HC-KAR order directing the plaintiffs to pay deficit court fee as stated herein above. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that even if the second relief sought in the suit is presumed to be a declaratory relief, the plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee only under Section 24(d) of the Act and not under Section 24(a) & 24(b) of the Act. The suit is valued at Rs.1,000/-, and therefore, court fee is appropriately paid.
8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting defendants has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition and submits that under the release deeds which are questioned in the suit, defendant no.1 is put in possession of the suit schedule property. In prayer no.(i), the relief of possession is also sought, and therefore, the suit is required to be valued as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act and not under Section 24(b) & (d) of the Act. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in passing the order impugned.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:50285 WP No. 22636 of 2019 HC-KAR
9. In the suit, the plaintiffs have sought for three reliefs. The first relief is for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule property, the second relief is to declare the release deeds dated 25.05.2015 executed by plaintiff nos.1 & 2 in favour of defendant no.1 before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Doddaballapura, as void documents, and to cancel the same, and the third relief is to divide the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds into equal shares and allot two shares to the plaintiffs.
10. In the plaint, the first relief is valued under Section 35(2) of the Act and a fixed court fee of Rs.200/- is paid. So far as the second relief is concerned, the said relief is valued under Section 38 of the Act and since the property which is the subject matter of documents are not valued and no consideration was paid, a sum of Rs.25/- each was paid for the relief of cancellation of release deeds dated 25.05.2015.
11. A reading of the second prayer would go to show that the relief of declaring the release deeds as void documents is prayed, and therefore, the said relief ought to have been -7- NC: 2025:KHC:50285 WP No. 22636 of 2019 HC-KAR valued under Section 24(d) of the Act and not under Section 38 of the Act.
12. Section 24 of the Act, reads as under:
"24. Suits for declaration.-In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25.-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market-value of the property or on [rupees on thousand] whichever is higher;
(b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher;
(c) [xxx]
(d) in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher."
13. Section 24(a) of the Act would be applicable, wherein a prayer for declaration and possession of the property to which the declaration relates is made, and Section 24(b) of the Act -8- NC: 2025:KHC:50285 WP No. 22636 of 2019 HC-KAR would apply wherein a prayer for a declaration and for consequential relief of injunction is made.
14. In the case on hand, no relief of possession of the property for which declaration is sought has been claimed nor the relief of injunction is prayed for. Therefore, the suit is required to be valued under Section 24(d) of the Act.
15. Perusal of the plaint would go to show that the relief sought in the plaint is valued at Rs.1,000/-, and therefore, in my considered opinion, the court fee paid by the petitioners is proper, though the second relief in the suit was valued as provided under Section 38 of the Act. Section 38 of the Act would apply in the event the relief of cancellation of the document is sought, but in the present case, the relief sought for is to declare the document as void, and therefore, Section 24 of the Act would be applicable. For the reasons aforesaid, even if the suit is valued under Section 24 of the Act, the court fee on the plaint is sufficient. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the following order: -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:50285 WP No. 22636 of 2019 HC-KAR
16. Writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.04.2019 passed on IA.No.2 in O.S.No.86/2019 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, in so far as it relates to directing them to pay court fee of Rs.2,47,125/- + 1/2% the remaining amount exceeding Rs.80 lakhs as per Article 16 of the 1st Schedule of the Act, is set aside.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK