- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3993 WP No. 47179 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 47179 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL NISAR S/O SRI G.MOHIDIN AGED ABOUT RESIDING AT SHOP NO.11, KERALA SAMAJAM COMPLEX K.S. RAO ROAD, MANGALORE- 575 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK WAGLE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUMARI BHAGYASHREE D/O LATE SHANKAR S ACHAR AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS RESIDING AT PANKAAJE HOUSE, NEAR CHAKRAPANE TEMPLE AATTAVAR, MANGALORE -575 001 REPRESENTED BY COURT GUARDIAN VIZ K SRIDHAR RAO, ADVOCATE VENKATRAMANA BUILDING CAR STREET, MANGALORE- 575 001 2. SMT PRABHA S. ACHAR W/O SRI SHANKER S. ACHAR AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT PANKAAJE HOUSE, NEAR CHAKRAPANI TEMPLE AATTAVAR, MANGALORE -575 001 3. SRI G.MOHIDIN S/O SRI HAJI ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT FATHIMA MAHAL, PADUKODI VILLAGE, KULOOR, MANGALORE TALUK -575 013. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3993 WP No. 47179 of 2017 4. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR MADA S/O SRI BHUJANGA MADA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT PLOT NO.18, SECTOR-2, OPP PUNJAB CONWERE DRONAGIRI, NAVI MUMBAI- 400 707 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED FARUK, ADVOCATE FOR R3 MS.RAJESHWARI K.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VIJAYAKRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R1 & R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K. DATED: 09.08.2017 ORDER ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES IN O.S.NO. 579 OF 2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on preliminary issues with regard to the Court fees in O.S.No.579/2008 dated 09.08.2017 by the I Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., Mangaluru, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court. 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit seeking declaration that the registered settlement deed dated 08.10.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and registered as document No.4024/2007-2008 in Book No.1 of Sub-Registrar of Mangalore City, Mangalore, as null and void and also sought for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.2 from - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3993 WP No. 47179 of 2017 alienating or disposing off the Plaint 'A' schedule property on the basis of fraudulent registered settlement deed dated 08.10.2007. When the defendants have raised an issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and also on the Court fees, the Court by order impugned had directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee as per Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that as he is not an executant of the document, he need not pay the Court fees on the market value of the document and he can pay the fixed Court fees and all these aspects were not considered by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others1. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ defendants submits that in this case, the plaintiff had sought the relief to declare the document as null and void and as such, he need to pay the Court fees as per the value mentioned in the document. 1 AIR 2010 SC 2807 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3993 WP No. 47179 of 2017 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The judgement relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh referred supra does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. Here, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the document is not binding on him, but the relief that is sought is to declare that the settlement deed as null and void and in that case, he has to pay the Court fees on the market value of the said document. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3