[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Lakshmamma vs Smt B Sujatha on 8 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
WP No. 27300 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 27300 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA,
W/O LATE BORANNA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 30, 1st MAIN ROAD,
7th CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
2. SRI. RAMESH KUMAR,
S/O LATE BORANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 30, 1st MAIN ROAD,
7th CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
3. SMT. B L SUMITHA,
W/O SRI. GANGADHAR,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
by KAVYA R
R/AT NO. 26 GURUPRIYA MANSION,
Location: High
court of YELACHENAHALLI,
Karnataka KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AJAY GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT B SUJATHA
W/O H C KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 60, JYOTHI LAYOUT,
YELACHENAHALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
WP No. 27300 of 2023
HC-KAR
KRISHNADEVARAYA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 078.
2. SMT SUVITHA,
W/O SRI. Y VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT YALAKKI GANIGARA PALYA,
BANASHANKARI 6th STAGE,
4th D BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 062.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NATARAJA H C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/10/2023 PASSED BY THE
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANGAR IN OS
94/2015 ON THE MEMO (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of
India is filed by defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 assailing order
dated 09.10.2023 passed on the memo dated 07.06.2023
filed in O.S.No.94/2015 by the Court of Principal Senior
Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
HC-KAR
3. Respondent No.1 herein has filed
O.S.No.94/2015 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at
Ramanagara seeking the relief of declaration and
consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect to
the suit schedule property. Contesting defendants have
entered appearance in the suit and filed their written
statement opposing the suit claim. It appears that a memo
dated 07.06.2023 was filed in O.S.No.94/2015 by the
petitioners herein alleging that proper court fee was not
paid by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, after hearing
arguments addressed on both sides, has rejected the said
memo vide the order impugned. Being aggrieved by the
same, petitioners who are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 in
O.S.No.94/2015 are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
suit is filed for cancellation of the gift deed. Therefore,
court fee had to be paid as provided under Section 38 of
the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958
(in short 'the Act'). The suit is valued for the purpose of
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
HC-KAR
court fee under Section 24(d) of the Act, which is not
permissible. In support of his arguments, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case
of SHRI.MADAN DATTARAM DESHPANDE VS.
SMT.SAROJYA AND OTHERS, in CRP.No.253/2008
disposed of on 04.09.2015 and ASUNTHA D'SOUZA VS.
JOYCE PAKSINA D'SOUZA NEE D.MELLO AND
ANOTHER reported in ILR 2017 Karnataka 2657.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1
has argued in support of the order impugned.
6. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.94/2015 would go
to show that the plaintiff has sought to grant a judgment
and decree declaring the gift deed dated 08.09.2014
executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1,
registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Ramanagara as
null and void and also has sought for a decree of
consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit
schedule property. From a reading of the reliefs prayed for
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
HC-KAR
in the suit, it is very clear that the suit is filed seeking a
decree of declaration as well as permanent injunction and
no relief is sought for cancellation of the gift deed.
Therefore, section 38 of the Act does not get attracted for
the purpose of payment of court fee in the present case.
7. When a suit is filed for declaration and for
possession the same is required to be valued for the
purpose of court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of
the Act and when the suit is filed seeking the relief of
declaration and consequential injunction, the suit is
required to be valued for the purpose of court fee as
provided under Section 24(b). In cases which are not
covered either under Section 24(a) or under 24(b), then
Section 24(d) would be applicable. In the present case,
the plaintiff has valued the suit as provided under Section
24(d) of the Act for the purpose of payment of the court
fee and the Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of
the matter has rightly rejected the memo dated
07.06.2023 filed on behalf of the defendant. Even
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
HC-KAR
otherwise if the suit were to be valued as provided under
Section 24(a) or under 24(b) of the Act, since the suit
schedule property is an agricultural land, then Section 7(2)
of the Act gets attracted and therefore, court fee is not
required to be paid on the market value of the suit
schedule property.
8. In the case of ASUNTHA D'SOUZA (Supra), this
Court was considering payment of court fee in a suit filed
for cancellation of gift deed, whereas no such relief is
sought for in the present case. Therefore, the judgment in
the case of ASUNTHA D'SOUZA (Supra) on which
reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present case.
In the case of SHRI.MADAN DATTARAM DESHPANDE
(Supra) this Court has considered the question of payment
of court fee in a suit filed for declaration and having regard
to the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was
held, since the relief of declaration and consequential relief
of injunction was sought in the said suit, the suit was
NC: 2025:KHC:51691
HC-KAR
required to be valued as provided in Section 24(b) of the
Act and not 24(d). Even the said judgment cannot not be
made applicable to the facts of the present case. Under
the circumstances, I do not find merit in this writ petition.
According, the writ petition is dismissed.
Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration
and the same are accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KVR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
