Karnataka High Court
T H Rudrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10520
WP No. 22631 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 22631 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. T.H. RUDRAPPA
S/O LATE, HIRIYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT. GEETHA,
W/O T.H. RUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT, 49 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT,
THINDLU VILLAGE,
VIDYARANPURA POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARENDRA.S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
MADHURI S
Location: High 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE.
BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY
2. SMT. SAROJAMMA,
W/O, P. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE,
VIDYARANPURA POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 097.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10520
WP No. 22631 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. M.E. PILLAPPA S/O ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
4. P.NAVEEN KUMAR,
S/O M.E.PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.32, ERANNA NILAYA,
DODDABOMMASANDRA,
CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560 097.
5. NARASIMHA ACHAR JOSHI,
S/O, J.SUDHINDRA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
6. JOSHI NARAYAN ACHAR
S/O, J.SUDHINDRA ACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT, NO. 50/1,
3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT,
DODDABOMMASANDRA,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE-560 097.
7. T.H. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O, LATE, HIRIYANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/O, THINDLU VILLGE,
VIDYARANPURA POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. V. HEMALATHA, AGA FOR R-1)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
06.01.2025 PASSED BY XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU IN OS NO. 8606/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE -G AS THE SAME
IS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:10520
WP No. 22631 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
"a. Issue writ of certiorari by quashing the order dated 6-1-2025 passed by XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru in O.S.No.8606/20219 as per Annexure 'G' as the same is illegal and opposed to law, b. Consequently allow the I.A.1/2023 filed by the defendants 5 and 6 /Petitioner herein under Section 11(2), (3) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1958 as per Annexure 'E'.
c. Grant such other relief/s as the situation demands with cost in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff against the petitioners-defendant Nos.5 and 6 and other defendants seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property, the petitioners not only put forth -4- NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR a counter claim but also filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit had not been properly valued and the court fee paid was insufficient. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai Vs. Smt. Pushpa Hosamani & others - ILR 2018 KAR 5095 by holding that the said issue would necessarily have to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit and not at the stage of considering an application IA No.1/2023, which was rightly rejected by the Trial Court by holding as under:
" ORDER ON I.A.No.1/2023The defendants No.5 and 6 have filed the above application under Section 11(2) and (3) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to reject the plaint as the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient in the interest of justice and equity.
2. In the affidavit annexed to the application it is stated that the suit is for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their henchmen from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and at the time of filing of the suit, office has raised objections on 29.11.2019 regarding the payment of court-fee under Section 24(b) of KCF & SV Act on the present market value of the suit schedule property. However, the said office objection -5- NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR was kept open in view of the urgency pleaded and the court proceeded to pass ex-parte order of temporary injunction.
2.1 Subsequently, the defendant No.5 has come on record on 24.02.2020 and has filed written-statement along with counter-claim by paying court-fee of Rs.2,41,150/- on the counter-claim.
2.2 On 30.11.2021 the defendant No.5 has filed a Memo that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient and as per the directions of the court, the office has calculated the deficit court-fee of Rs.2,43, 413/- on the plaint, on 21.01.2022 and 05.03.2022 the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought time to pay the deficit court-fee. The plaintiff has not paid the court- fee till today and hence, the plaint is liable to be rejected for non - payment of sufficient court-fee.
3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed objections to the present application contending that the memo for payment of deficit court-fee filed on 30.11.2021 has been kept at abeyance in view of the Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ILR 2018 KAR 5095.
Therefore, the application lacks merits and consequently the application is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs.
4. Heard the arguments.
4.1 During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants No.5 and 6 have relied upon the following judgments:
1. 2023(3) KAR.L.R. 700 in the case of Peeru and Anr. Vs. Siddappa and others;
2. 2024(2) AKR 772 in the case of Kunhanna Shetty Vs. Cecilia Crasta and Ors. ;
3. 2022(1) KAR.L.R 616 in the case of Sharanabasappa Vs. Sangamesh and Ors. ;-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. CRP.No.228/23 in the case of S. Muralikrishna Vs. Smt. S. Shilpa ;
5. W.P.No.36636/2018 in the case of Sri D.S. Sanjay Vs. Sri D. Ajay;
and sought to contend that the defendant is entitled to question the correctness of the court-fee paid by the plaintiff under Section 11 of the KCF & SV Act and if the plaintiff fails to do so, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
4.2 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the following judgments:
1. AIR 2019 KAR 47 (Venkatesh R. Desai V/s Pushpahosmani and Ors.) ;
2. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 14.07.2023 in the case of Smt. Puttamma and others V/s Smt Sarojamma and others ;
3. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 25.08.2022 in the case of Sri. Manu N V/s M/S Qwik Supply Chain Private Limited and others ;
4. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 13.03.2023 in the case of Sri. Marirudraiah V/s Smt. B Channaveeramma and others.
4.3 Heavy emphasis was laid on the judgment in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai V/s Pushpahosmani in W.P.8087/2018, a Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, wherein it is held that when an issue of valuation or court-fee is raised in a Civil Suit on the objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue before taking the evidence on -7- NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR other issues, but could be tried as a preliminary issue only is it relates to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
4.4 Further it is held that the word "shall" usedin sub-
Sections (2) and (5) of Section 11 of the KCF & SV Act shall be construed as directory in nature and not mandatory and further the court held that the issue regarding determination of the court-fee for the purpose of sub-Sections (2) and (5) of Section 11 of the KCF & SV Act may be undertaken by the court along with the other issues, if such an issue does not relate to the jurisdiction of the court.
4.5 Perused the materials placed record and the judgments relied by both the parties.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the following points arise for consideration :
(1) Whether the defendants No.5 and 6 have made out grounds to allow I.A.No.1/2023 filed under Section 11(2) and (3) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Section 151 C.P.C.? (2) What order?
6. My answer to the above points are :
Point No.1 - In the Negative Point No.2 - As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
7. Points No.1 :- Admittedly, the suit is for declaration and injunction to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 16.01.2002 and for the relief of permanent injunction to -8- NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR restrain the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property.
8. As per the valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff, the suit is valued on the basis of the value shown in the slip i.e. Rs.83,000/- and it is stated that as on the date of the suit i.e. on 28.01.2019, the market value is double the value shown in the slip i.e. Rs.1,66,000/- and court-fee of Rs.5,395/- is paid under Section 24(b) of KCF & SV Act and for the relief of permanent injunction, the suit is valued for Rs.1,000/- and court-fee is paid under Section 26(c) of KCF & SV Act. Thus, the total court-fee f Rs.5,420/- is paid on the plaint.
9. No doubt, the office has raised objections at the time of registration of the plaint regarding payment of court- fee under Section 24(b) of KCF & SV Act on the present market value in terms of square value and office has also put up a note regarding the deficit court-fee as per the office note dated 14.12.2021 on the basis of the guideline value. It is further pertinent to note that as per the office calculation, the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is found to be deficit for a sum of Rs.2,43,4430/-. Relying on this office note, the present application is filed to reject the plaint for non payment of proper court-fee. The application though couched under Section 11 of KCF & SV Act, but the ingredients of the application indicate that the plaintiff has sought for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) of C.P.C. for non - payment of deficit court-fee.
10. Order VII Rule 11(b) C.P.C. empowerS the court to reject the plaint for non payment of sufficient court-fee.
-9-NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR However, such rejection of plaint is subject to the rider that the plaintiff should be afforded with an opportunity to submit regarding sufficiency of court-fee and payment of court-fee on determination of the same and it is only on such determination and grant of time to make the deficit payment good that the court would for jurisdiction to reject the plaint. But in the case on hand, merely on the office note the instant application is filed to reject the plaint, which is not permissible in law. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff relying on the Full Bench judgment in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai V/s Pushpahosmani stated supra, the question of determination of court-fee need not be gone into unless it touches the jurisdiction of the court.
11. Here in the case on hand, the plaintiff has valued the suit totally on the sale consideration amount and has valued the suit for Rs.1,66,000/- under Section 24(b) of KCF & SV Act and accordingly has paid the court-fee of Rs.5,420/- and the defendants No.5 and 6 have not produced any material on record in support of their contention to show that the said calculation is against the market value of the property. Therefore, at this stage merely on the office note this court cannot reject the plaint unless this court conclusively determines the deficit court-fee. The question of payment of sufficient court-fee is between the plaintiff and the court at this stage. Therefore, if despite the payment of court-fee as per the plaint averments, the defendants find that the plaintiff is in due of payment of deficit court-fee as per the KCF & SV Act, he can still agitate his right independently. Hence, at this stage no grounds are
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR made out to dwelve into the issues of court-fee and the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is held just and proper subject to final determination on the said issue during the course of trial. Hence, the present I.A. is liable to be rejected. Accordingly point No.1 for consideration is answered in the Negative.
12. Point No.2 : Hence the following :
ORDER
(i) I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the defendants No.5 and 6 under Section 11(2) and (3) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Section 151 C.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(ii) No order as to costs."
4. Upon re-appreciation, re-evaluation and reconsideration of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath - (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal - AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10520 WP No. 22631 of 2025 HC-KAR
- (2022) 10 SCC 477. At any rate, since the issue/question as to valuation and court fee has been kept open by the Trial Court to be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit, as held by the full bench in Venkatesh R. Desai's case (supra), it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the application was rejected.
5. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and teh same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 59