- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 44689 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SHRI L ANANDA, S/O M LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO.6, 6TH CROSS, VINAYAKA LAY-OUT, DODDANEKKUNDI EXTENSION, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU-560 037. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR R.H, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LEELAVATHI, W/O LATE SHRI M LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O NO.6, 6TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, DODDANEKKUNDI, DODDANEKKUNDI EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 037. 2. SHRI NAGENDRA, S/O LATE SHRI M LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O NO.283/1, NEAR HOSTEL MADHURANAGAR, VARTHUR, BANGALORE SOUTH, VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560 087. 3. SHRI NAGARAJ, S/O LATE SHRI M LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by ROOPA R U Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 PRESENTLY R/O NO.527, NEAR VIDYA JYOTHI SCHOOL HOSTEL, MADHURANAGAR, II STAGE, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 087. 4. SHRI MAHESH, S/O LATE SHRI M LAKSHMANA, PRESENTLY R/O NO.81, DOOR NO.81, 8TH CROSS, FRIENDS LAY-OUT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI, DODDANAKKUNDI POST, BENGALURU-560 037. 5. SHRI SURESH, S/O LATE SHRI M LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O NO.527, NEAR VIDYA JYOTHI SCHOOL HOSTEL, MADHURANAGAR, II STAGE, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 087. 6. SHRI L HARSHA, S/O LATE SHRI M LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/O NO.102, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE, 1ST CROSS, PRAKASH LAY-OUT, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.H RAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5; R-6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH NO.63, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.8488/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is a plaintiff in OS No.8488/2015 is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2015, passed on the issue of payment of court fee to the extent of the observation made therein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed the above suit for the relief of declaration declaring that Deed of Gift dated 27.05.2015 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and another Deed of Gift dated 28.08.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and consequential relief of permanent injunction primarily based on the averments made at para-7 of the plaint. 3. That plaintiff, at para 7 of the plaint has alleged the conspiracy between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to knock- off the valuable property of the plaintiff. In that, it is alleged that they have created a document by forging the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 signature of the plaintiff as if the plaintiff has executed the said document. He submits that basis of the entire suit is the averments made in para 7 of the plaint which requires to be adverted, adjudicated and determined during the trial. It is his further submission that the trial Court while passing the impugned order on the issue of payment of court fee has however, conclusively held that the plaintiff is a party to the said Deed of Gift, since the same is shown to have been executed through a Power of Attorney Holder. It is his further submission that the such finding would amount to predetermination of the case requiring no further trial in the matter. Hence, he seeks for allowing the petition. 4. Heard. Perused the records. 5. Order dated 31.10.2015 produced at Annexure- A is passed for the purpose of determination of the court fee payable by the plaintiff on the reliefs sought for in the plaint. The said order is extracted herein below: "Perused the fresh Valuation slip filed by the plaintiff. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 The plaintiff has specifically contended that he had purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, defendant No.2 had executed a Gift Deed of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1, subsequently defendant No.1 has gifted away the suit schedule property to defendant No.2 under the registered Gift Deed. Hence the plaintiff has approached the Court seeking relief that, the Gift Deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 are not binding on him and sought for cancellation. The Court is of the opinion that, a perusal of the Gift Deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 clearly goes to show that, defendant No.2 had executed the Gift Deed as GPA holder of the plaintiff. When that is so, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is a party to the Gift Deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Hence he has to pay Court fee regarding cancellation of Gift Deed on the market value of the suit schedule property. Though, it is contended by the plaintiff that Gift Deed does not discloses the value of the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property for Rs.4,38,000/- under registered Sale Deed dated 27.03.2006 under the value of the property is appreciated. But for the sake of this suit the plaintiff has to value consideration shown in his Sale Deed. Hence contention of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 plaintiff that he has not liable to pay Court fee on the market value is un-sustainable. Hence the following:- ORDER The plaintiff is directed to value the suit on the consideration of his Sale Deed and pay Court fee under Section 24(D) and 38(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. For compliance call 04.11.2015." (Underlining made by this Court) 6. The short grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the observation made by the trial Court at unnumbered para 2 of the aforesaid order. 7. There is considerable force in the submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court ought not to have formed such opinion in the impugned order even though, it is for the purpose of payment of court fee inasmuch as, the fulcrum of the suit is the averments made in para 7 of the plaint containing allegations of fabrication and forgery of the document by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The trial not having been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 conducted, the trial Court ought not to have formed the such opinion. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner on a query by this Court submits that the court fee has been paid and petitioner has no grievance with regard to payment of court fee. Hence, submits that if this Court expunges the said opinion, it would meet the ends of justice. 9. Submission is taken on record. 10. The order of the trial Court to the extent of expressing opinion that "The Court is of the opinion that, a perusal of the Gift Deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 clearly goes to show that, defendant No.2 had executed the Gift Deed as GPA holder of the plaintiff. When that is so, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is a party to the Gift Deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1” as found in unnumbered para 2 of the said order shall not be considered as part of the said order. 11. It is made clear that parties are at liberty to prove and disprove the respective cases during the Trial, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9335 WP No. 44689 of 2018 which shall be considered without reference to the above observation made in the impugned order. 12. With the above observations, the impugned order is modified. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3