- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12814 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. M.J. ABDHUL RAHIM, S/O LATE ZIKRIYA SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. RIHANA PRAVEEN, W/O LATE M.J. KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. M.J. GAFOOR, S/O LATE ZIKRIYA SAB, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 4. M.J. SUBHAN, S/O LATE ZIKRIYA SAB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 5. M.J. ISMAIL, S/O LATE ZIKRIYA SAB, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 6. M.J. AKBAR, S/O LATE ZIKRIYA SAB, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENCE OF HOLALKERE ROAD, BEHIND COURT BUILDING, HOSADURGA TOWN - 577 527. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 AND: 1. H.P. SHOBHANA MURTHY, S/O SIDDALINGASWAMY, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 1(A). SMT. YASHODHA, W/O LATE H.P. SHOBHANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KARISIDDESHESHWARA SWAMY BETTA ROAD, RAMAGIRI - 577 527, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. 2. H.P. NIJAGUNASWAMY, S/O SIDDALINGASWAMY PATTADA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS. 2(A). SMT. PRAPULLA NIJAGUNASWAMY, W/O LATE H.P. NIJAGUNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2(B). SRI. AMITH HIREMATHA, S/O LATE H.P. NIJAGUNASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KARISIDDESHWARA SWAMY BETTA ROAD, RAMAGIRI TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 527. 3. DRAKASHAYANAMMA, W/O MOODALAGIRYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 R/O GUNDERI ROAD, RAMAGIRI TOWN HOLALKERE TALUK - 577 527. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH R. NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 AND R1(A), R2(A AND B)) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 5.12.2018 ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE NO.6 PASSED IN O.S.NO.01/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOLALKERE VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 05.12.2018 on preliminary issue No. 6 passed in O.S.No.1/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Holalkere, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 2. The plaintiffs have sought for permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction to remove the illegal constructions. According to the petitioners, it is a non- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 agricultural land and they have assessed the Court fee at Rs.9,00,000/- and accordingly, paid the Court fees as per Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCF & SV Act' for short). When an issue is framed with regard to the Court Fees as the preliminary issue, the Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are directed to pay the necessary Court fees in accordance with Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act on the basis of market value of the suit schedule properties within one month from the date of the order and furnish fresh valuation slip, failing which the suit is ordered to be dismissed as the Court Fee paid is insufficient. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that it is an agricultural property and the defendants have placed some material to show that it is no more agricultural property and the Court cannot look into those kind of evidence and the Court Fees needs to be paid as per Section 24(b) of the KCF & SV Act and but not as per Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act. It is submitted that all these aspects were not considered by the Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / defendants submits that the properties as per exhibit D1 to D6 are not agricultural properties and the calculation of the Court Fees as if the suit schedule properties are agricultural properties, was rightly considered by the Court and the Court had rightly directed the plaintiffs to pay the Court Fees as per Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act . 5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The suit is filed for declaration and permanent injunction and also a mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised structures. Section 24 of the KCF & SV Act deals with the Court fees in respect of the declaratory suits, which reads thus: "24. Suits for declaration: In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under section 25 - (a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 1[rupees one thousand] whichever is higher; (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on 1[rupees one thousand] whichever is higher; (c) 2[ x x x x x] (d) in other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on 3 [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher." 6. As far as immovable properties are concerned as per Section 24(b) it shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property. When there is a specific provision with regard to the immovable property, the trial Court ought not to have directed the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee as per 1 Substituted by Act No.13 of 1982, w.e.f. 1-4-1982 for the words "rupees one hundred". 2 *Clause (c) Omitted by Act No. 13 of 1982, w.e.f. 1-4-1982. 3 Substituted by Act No.13 of 1982, w.e.f. 1-4-1982 for the words "rupees two hundred and fifty". - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 Section 24(a) of the KCF & SV Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court ought to have computed the court fee as per section 24(b) of the KCF & SV Act. Then coming to the nature of properties whether agricultural or non- agricultural. As per the documents marked on behalf of the defendants, the properties are non-agricultural properties. In that view of the matter, basing on the value maintained by the Registrar, the petitioners/plaintiffs have to pay 'one-half of the market value of the property'. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The order impugned dated 05.12.2018 passed on preliminary issue No.6 in O.S.No.01/2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Holalkere, is set aside as far as, computing the Court Fees as per Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the plaintiffs/petitioners shall pay the Court Fees as per section 24(b) of the KCF & SV Act. (ii) As per the valuation available with the Registrar and basing on the market value, the petitioners/plaintiffs shall file a valuation slip as on the date of filing of the suit and the respondents/ - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2421 WP No. 12814 of 2019 defendants are at liberty to file their objections and basing on that, the Court will decide the amount that has to be paid by the plaintiffs/petitioners and fix the Court Fees. (iii) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (iv) All IAs., in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: BHK