- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 608 OF 2023 (IO) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJU S/O MALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. KANTHARAJU S/O MALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 3. SHANTHAKUMAR S/O BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT HOSPITAL BLOCK, VINAYAKA BADAVANE, K.R.NAGARA TOWN, MYSURU - 571 604. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B.N, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. BHARATHI W/O RAMEGOWDA B.R. AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 5420, VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION, 2ND PHASE, 4TH STAGE, MYSURU - 570 017 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD B.R, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.4 IN O.S.NO.12/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, K.R.NAGAR, REJECTING THE I.A.NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (b) R/W SEC.151 OF CPC FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prithvi Raj B. N., learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Guruprasad B. R., learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Defendants in O.S.No.12/2023 are the revision petitioners challenging the validity of the dismissal of the application filed by defendant No.2 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (b) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘CPC’ for short) vide I.A.No.4 in the present revision petition. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 3.1. A suit came to be filed by respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.12/2023 with the following relief in respect of the following property: PRAYER Wherefore, the plaintiff most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 and 2 for: a. Declare the plaintiff is the absolute owner in respect of plaint schedule property. b. Restrain the defendants, their men, representatives, workers etc not to interfere with plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by granting order of perpetual/permanent injunction. c. To award court costs and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 SCHEDULE All that part and parcel of landed property measuring 15 guntas in Sy.No.118/4D and 118 of Manuganahalli, Kasaba hobli, K.R.Nagar tq, Mysore district wherein sites formed as per ALN No.188/2001-02 dated 23.02.2002 and 90/2003- 04 dated 17.10.2003 and bearing municipal katha and assessment No.10417/1 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 40 feet, 10417/2 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 40 feet, 10417/3 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 40 feet, 10417/4 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 40 feet, 10417/5 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 40 feet, 10417/6 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 40 feet, 10417/7 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 62 feet and 10417/8 measuring east to west 30 feet south to north 62 feet situated at Kuvempunagar Extension, K.R.Nagar town and same has been approaved by office of TMC, K.R.Nagar through its approved plan and bounded by: East: Channel West: Road North: Property of Madegowda South: Lands belong to Government” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 3.2. Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis that she is the absolute owner in possession of site Nos.1 to 8 bearing K.R.Nagar Town Municipality Assessment and Katha No.10417/1 measuring East to West 30 feet, North to South 40 feet as detailed out in the plaint schedule property. 3.3. It is further contented by the plaintiff that she purchased 7.08 guntas of lands in Sy.No.118/4D of Manuganahalli, Kasaba Hobli, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District from Kalegowda and his minor children through registered sale deed dated 05.08.2002 which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Nagar. 3.4. Plaintiff also contended that she purchased 3.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.118/4D of Manuganahalli, Kasaba Hobli, K.R.Nagar, Mysore District from Shankara son of Narasegowda through registered sale deed on 09.09.2002. 3.5. Further contention of the plaintiff is that soon after the purchase of the properties, plaintiff got mutated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 the revenue entries in her name and plaintiff got converted those lands for residential purpose from competent authority. 3.6. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that defendants without having any right, title or interest in respect of the suit land; started interfering with the suit property on 31.01.2023 and tried to remove the fence and plaintiff had to approach the jurisdictional police and they in turn directed to file the civil suit. 3.7. Thus, according to the plaintiff, cause of action to file the suit arose on 31.01.2023 and on 02.02.2023 at Kuvempunagar Extension, K.R. Nagar town. 3.8. Suit was valued at sum of Rs.7,00,000/- by the plaintiff. 4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered appearance and filed written statement inter alia contending that suit is undervalued and filed an application under Order VII Rule - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 11(a) and (b) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint is undervalued. 5. Learned Trial Judge on contest, dismissed the said application inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as under: “13. In this regard learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held in between Venkatesh R. Desai V/s Smt.Pushpa Hosamani in W.P.No.8087/ 2018 dated 26.10.2018 wherein it is held as follows; In the case of Sujir Keshav Nayak(supra), the Supreme Court summed-up the law applicable in such matters in the following; “---The law on this aspect, thus, should be taken to be as under: (1) Where the question of court fee is linked with jurisdiction a defendant has a right to raise objection and the court should decide it as a preliminary issue. (2) But in those cases where the suit is filed in court of unlimited jurisdiction the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff or payment of amount of court fee on relief claimed in plaint or memorandum of appeal should be taken as correct. (3) This does not preclude the court even in suits filed - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 in courts of unlimited jurisdiction from examining if the valuation, on averments in plaint, as arbitrary.” 26. On a comprehension of the principles in the decision aforesaid, it is more than apparent that the law relating to the court fees and suits valuation has never been intended to provide a tool to the defendant or any party to the litigation to avoid the decision on the merits of the case and to elongate the life of the suit in the name of raising the questions regarding valuation and/or court fees. 27. Of course, when the question of suit valuation relates to and has implication on the jurisdiction of the court, it may be determined as a preliminary issue as envisaged by Order XIV Rule 2 CPC; and else, the matter simplicitor of valuation and/or court fees, though raised by the defendant, could be decided along with other issues, if it does not otherwise relate to the jurisdiction of the court. This has been the reason that in the case of Nanjamma(Supra) an Renuka Manghnani(supra), this court made it clear that in the suit relating to the partition of joint property, the plaint averments of joint possession takes it within the periphery of Section 35(2) of the Act of 1958 and when it does not relate to jurisdiction, such an issue is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 not to be tried as a preliminary issue. In Renuka Manghnani the learned Single judge said, and in our view rightly so that,- 14. The principles laid down in this decision rightly applicable to the present case. In the case on hand, the defendants are not disputing the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the question of court fee is not linked with jurisdiction of the court. Hence, the court should not decide it as a preliminary issue. The suit is filed in court of unlimited jurisdiction and hence the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff or payment of amount of court fee on relief claimed in plaint at this stage is taken as correct. In this case, the question of suit valuation not relates to and has no implication on the jurisdiction of the court. Hence, it may not be determined as a preliminary issue as envisaged by Order XIV Rule 2 CPC. The matter is simplicitor of valuation and/or court fees, raised by the defendant, could be decided along with other issues as it is relates to the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that, the suit itself is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected because the suit has been under value and the required court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff at this stage not sustainable. This court has got every jurisdiction to try the suit and there is no express or implied bar under law to entertain the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 suit. With regard to payment of court fees is concerned, it is a question of fact which will be decided during the trial in Issue No.2. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.” 6. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court, in this revision. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that under Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, the valuation of the suit property is incorrect and therefore, plaint ought to have been rejected. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order. 9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 10. On such perusal of the material on record, if improper Court fee is paid, it is a matter between the Court and the plaintiff. No doubt, defendant can bring it to the notice of the Court that the plaint is improperly valued. 11. If it is so, an issue would be definitely raised on the basis of the rival pleadings. After raising such issue, the question of payment of Court fee on the plaint can be treated as preliminary issue as is contemplated under Order XIV of CPC which requires an enquiry to be held to find out the sufficiency of the Court fee on the plaint. 12. Without such an exercise being carried out, plaint cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of improper valuation of the suit by resorting to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Moreover, it is settled principle of law that for rejection of plaint, plaint averments alone needs to be considered and not the defence in the written statement. 13. Accordingly, rejection of the application is just and proper which requires no interference in this revision. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48740 CRP No. 608 of 2023 14. Hence, following: ORDER Revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47