- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 145817 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: H.G.THIMMA REDDY, S/O GIRIYAPPA @ GIRI GOUDA, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, R/O: HALKUNDI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.LEELAVATHI W/O LATE YANKA REDDY AGED ABOUT: 59 YEARS, R/O: DASARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHALLEKERI TALUK, CHITRADURTA DISTRICT-577501. 2. SMT.SHARADAMMA W/O RAYANA GOUDA AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, R/O: SANGANKAL VILLAGE, BALLARI TQ. AND DIST.-583201. 3. K.SHIVA KUMAR S/O SHIVA RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, R/O: HALKUNDI VILLAGE, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2019 MADE ON I.A.NO.15, IN O.S.NO.857/2011, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.29 16:28:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 BALLARI, (VIDE ANNEXURE-F) AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.02.2020 MADE ON MEMO DATED 10.12.2019 IN O.S.NO.857/2011, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BALLARI (ANNNEXURE-J) AND FURTHER TO ALLOW THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.12.2019 (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition is by plaintiff assailing the order of the learned Judge directing the plaintiff to pay Court fee on the actual market value of the suit schedule property by treating the suit schedule property as non-agricultural lands. The said order is under challenge. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.3. 3. Before this Court proceeds to examine the order impugned, this Court deems fit to cull out the prayer sought in the plaint which are extracted as follows: “16. The plaintiff therefore prays the Honorable court be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant:- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 (a). Declaring the plaintiff sangh i.e., Sri. Veerabhandraweshwara Vidya Samasthe as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. 16(a) (1) “The alleged sale deed document No.6798/11-12, dated.05-09-2011, mutation orders No.38/2011-12, dated 28-10-2011 between the defendant No.1 and proposed defendant No.3 in respect of suit schedule property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. (b). For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 her men, agents, servants, assignees and all other such persons claiming interest through them from alienating the schedule property in favour of the defendant No.2 or in favour of any third parties. (c). For costs of the suit; and. (d). For such other relief or relief’s as the Honorable court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.” 4. On a plain reading of the prayer sought by the plaintiff, it is clearly evident that the plaintiff is asserting absolute ownership over the suit schedule properties based on a registered sale deed dated 02.11.1965. The plaintiff in para 16(a) (1) is also seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 28.10.2011 obtained by defendant No.3 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 5. Upon a closer examination of the impugned order, this Court finds significant ambiguity and lack of clarity regarding - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 the Trial Court's reasoning, particularly with respect to the payment of Court fee on the reliefs claimed in the plaint. It is unclear from the impugned order whether the Trial Court has directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee on the actual market value of the suit schedule property in relation to the second relief of declaration sought at paragraph 16(a)(1) of the plaint. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court to the objections raised by defendant No.3, wherein it is asserted that the demand for Court fee based on actual market value pertains specifically to the said second relief of declaration. It is the case of the plaintiff that she asserts an independent title to the suit schedule property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in her favour in the year 1965. The second declaration sought at paragraph 16(a)(1) of the plaint is to declare the sale deed allegedly executed in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. This relief, it is contended, is ancillary in nature and flows from the principal relief of declaration of title. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 7. On a careful reading of the second relief of declaration, this Court is of the prima facie view that the said relief may not fall within the ambit of Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter "the Act"), which applies to suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, particularly where possession is sought. Instead, the second relief, which seeks to invalidate a subsequent sale deed allegedly executed in favour of a third party, appears to be an ancillary relief within the meaning of Section 24(d) of the Act. 8. The distinction between principal and ancillary reliefs has been judicially recognized. It is a settled principle that when a plaintiff seeks a declaratory relief asserting title and, as a consequential or ancillary relief, challenges an instrument adverse to that title, the valuation of the ancillary relief must follow the principal relief, unless such ancillary relief is substantive and independent in nature. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh1, where it was held that if 1 (2010) 12 SCC 112 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 the main relief is for declaration and the relief of possession is merely consequential or ancillary, then the Court fee need not be paid on market value unless possession is independently sought. 9. In the present case, the relief of declaration sought against the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 is intrinsically linked to the principal relief of declaration of title and does not involve any prayer for possession, nor is it an independent cause of action. Accordingly, the valuation of Court fee for the second declaration must be examined under Section 24(d), which provides for suits to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed for. 10. Further, the Trial Court has not adverted to or analyzed the character of the second relief sought at paragraph 16(a)(1), nor does the impugned order indicate whether the valuation assessed pertains to the first or second relief. This lack of clarity renders the impugned order unsustainable. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff has already paid the Court fee on the basis of the Sub-Registrar's market value with respect to the first relief of declaration. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 11. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order warrants interference. The same is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to re-examine the nature of the second relief sought at paragraph 16(a)(1) of the plaint and determine afresh whether the Court fee is to be computed under Section 24(d) of the Act, treating it as an ancillary relief, or otherwise. The Trial Court shall also consider the plaintiff’s submission that she is not a party to the sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 and whether, in such circumstances, the relief can be valued independently at market value. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order is hereby set aside. iii. Plaintiff shall furnish and pay the Court fee on the relief of declaration sought at para 16(a)(1) in accordance with law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6383 WP No. 145817 of 2020 iv. The Trial Court is directed to re-examine the nature of the second relief sought at paragraph 16(a)(1) of the plaint and determine afresh whether the Court fee is to be computed under Section 24(d) of the Act, treating it as an ancillary relief, or otherwise. v. On furnishing fresh valuation, Court shall examine the correctness of Court fee and valuation. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CLK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 15