Karnataka High Court
K Madhav Rao vs D Banumaiah S Educational Institution on 7 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
W.P. No.5572/2020
C/W W.P. No.5533/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO.5572/2020 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.5533/2020 (GM-CPC)
IN W.P. No.5572/2020:
BETWEEN:
K. MADHAV RAO
S/O P. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.D.NO.605, 2/1
BANUMAIAH'S COLLEGE ROAD
Digitally signed MYSURU 570024.
by RUPA V
Location: High ALSO AT:
Court of HOTEL GOKUL
karnataka SRI. KRISHNA COMPLEX
D. BANUMAIAH'S SQUARE
MYSURU 570024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIDAR A.G. ADV.,)
AND:
1. D. BANUMAIAH'S EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD
MYSURU 570024.
2. SMT. SHANTHA BHASKARA
D/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
3. SMT. PREMA KARANTH
D/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
W.P. No.5572/2020
C/W W.P. No.5533/2020
HC-KAR
4. SMT. PUSHPA KAKILIYA
D/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
5. DR. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE
ALL R/AT D.NO.605, 2/1
GOVINDA KRUPA
BANUMAIAH'S COLLEGE ROAD
K.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU 570024.
ALSO AT:
HOTEL GOKUL
SRI. KRISHNA COMPLEX
D. BANUMAIAH'S SQUARE
MYSURU 570024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUMANTH M.S. ADV., FOR
SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADV., FOR R1
V/O/DTD:01.07.2021 NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 ARE D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ORDER
DATED 18.01.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.XIII IN O.S.NO.322/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J. ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH
COSTS & ETC.
IN W.P. NO.5533/2020:
BETWEEN:
K. MADHAV RAO
S/O P. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT. D.NO.605, 2/1
BANUMAIAH'S COLLEGE ROAD
MYSURU 570024.
ALSO AT:
HOTEL GOKUL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
W.P. No.5572/2020
C/W W.P. No.5533/2020
HC-KAR
SRI KRISHNA COMPLEX
D. BANUMAIAH'S SQUARE
MYSURU 570024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRIDAR A.G. ADV.,)
AND:
1. D. BANUMAIAH'S EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST
R/BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD
MYSURU 570024.
2. SMT. SHANTHA BHASKARA
D/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
3. SMT. PREMA KARANTH
D/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
4. SMT. PUSHPA KAKILIYA
D/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
5. DR. GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE SRI. KRISHNA RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE ALL
R/AT D.NO.605, 2/1, GOVINDA KRUPA
BANUMAIAH'S COLLEGE ROAD
K R MOHALLA, MYSURU 570024.
ALSO AT: HOTEL GOKUL
SRI. KRISHNA COMPLEX
D. BANUMAIAH'S SQUARE
MYSURU 570024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUMANTH M.S. ADV., FOR
SRI. P.N. MANMOHAN, ADV.,
V/O/DTD:01.07.2021 NOTICE TO R2 TO R5 ARE D/W)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
W.P. No.5572/2020
C/W W.P. No.5533/2020
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE
ORDER DTD.18.1.2020 PASSED ON IA NO.XII IN O.S.NO.322/2016
ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J. ALLOW THIS W.P. WITH COSTS &
ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
W.P.No.5573/2020 is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) declare that the order dated 18.01.2020 passed on
I.A.No.XII in O.S.No.322/2016 on the file of the III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, produced at
Annexure-J;
(ii) ALLOW this writ petition with costs."
2. W.P.No.5572/2020 is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) declare that the order dated 18.01.2020 passed on
I.A.No.XIII in O.S.No.322/2016 on the file of the III
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, produced at
Annexure-J;
(ii) ALLOW this writ petition with costs."
3. Sri.Sridhar A.G., learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit against
the petitioner and other respondents for judgment and decree
of ejectment and damages. The petitioner has filed a detailed
written statement denying the contents of the plaint and
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
HC-KAR
specifically contended that the Court fee paid by the
respondent No.1 is insufficient and the said issue is required to
be dealt as a preliminary issue. It is submitted that the
petitioner filed an application in IA No.12 to consider issue No.4
as preliminary issue before recording the evidence. However,
the trial Court without appreciating the fact that the premises,
which was given on lease to the petitioner, was a vacant
premises and thereafter the petitioner has put up a structure,
hence, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the Court fee on the
market value of the said structure, the trial Court by incorrect
finding rejected the application. It is further submitted that as
per the lease agreement the property has been improved by
putting up the structure and now that the respondent No.1 is
seeking to take back the superstructure, hence, he is liable to
pay the Court fee based on the market value and the present
market value of the superstructure is Rs.6.00 Crores. Hence, he
seeks to allow the petition.
4. It is also submitted that in W.P.No.5572/2020, the
petitioner is assailing the order of the trial Court, wherein the
petitioner's application seeking appointment of a valuer for the
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
HC-KAR
purpose of ascertaining the market value of the suit schedule
property is rejected.
5. Per contra, Sri.Sumanth M.S., learned counsel for
Sri.P.N.Manmohan, learned counsel for respondent No.1,
submits that respondent No.1 is the owner of the premises and
lease deed was entered in the year 1980 for a period of 35
years and the clauses of the lease deed indicate that petitioner
was required to pay a meagre rent as he was required to
develop the property, make use of the same and hand over the
same without claiming any right over the same. Hence,
considering the same, they have assessed the rent paid to the
premises and paid the Court fee, which has been rightly
considered by the trial Court in rejecting the application filed by
the petitioner. Hence, the question of interfering with the said
order would not arise. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petitions.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material
available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to
the submissions advanced on both sides.
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
HC-KAR
7. The respondent No.1 has filed a suit in
O.S.No.322/2016 against the petitioner and other respondents
for the relief of judgment and decree of ejectment from the suit
schedule property and further damages of Rs.7,50,000/-. The
petitioner has filed a detailed written statement, wherein at
paragraph No.5, it is averred that the petitioner has
constructed commercial building / complex in the suit schedule
property at their own costs and expenses and now the
respondent No.1-plaintiff is seeking to take back the possession
of the same; hence, respondent No.1-plaintiff is liable to pay
the Court fee on the market value of the superstructure and the
calculation of Court fee as per Section 41(1) of the Karnataka
Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, is incorrect.
8. The petitioner has also filed an application under
Section 11(2) & (3) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1958, seeking to collect the Court fee on the
market value of the superstructure and prayer to consider issue
No.4 as a preliminary issue. The affidavit accompanying the
said applications indicate that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is
liable to pay the Court fee on the superstructure as per the
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
HC-KAR
market value and assessed the market value at Rs.6.00 Crores.
The trial Court, considering the rival submissions of the parties,
rejected the said application.
9. It is not in dispute that the clauses of the lease
deed dated 27.11.1980 indicates that the petitioner is liable to
pay the rent as per clause (3); clauses (5), (6) & (7) of the
lease deed indicates that petitioner is permitted to put up the
structure on the vacant land and alter the existing structure at
his own cost and he shall deliver back the entire premises
without claiming any charges for the improvements.
10. Considering the same and keeping in mind that the
suit is for ejectment, the trial Court has rightly come to the
conclusion that the Court fee paid and valued as per the rent
paid and recorded the finding at para 9 of the impugned order
that respondent No.1 valued the suit schedule property for
Rs.66,000/- as annual rent and paid the Court fees on the
same. I do not find any perversity or error in the finding
recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in the
present petitions.
NC: 2025:KHC:24518
HC-KAR
11. The clauses of the lease agreement are very clear
that the petitioner is bound to re-deliver the vacant possession
to the respondent No.1 with all the structures on the suit
schedule property. That being so, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court on
I.A.No.XII, which is challenged in W.P.No.5573/2020. In view
of the aforesaid finding, I also do not find any reason calling for
interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Court on
I.A.No.XIII, which is challenged in W.P.No.5572/2020.
12. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
Both the petitions are devoid of merits,
accordingly, the same are rejected.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
