- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 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. 561 OF 2018 (RES) BETWEEN: 1. HILLARI NAZARATH S/O SANTAN NAZARATH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O B H ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY - 577 401. 2. FELIX NAZARATH S/O SANTAN NAZARATH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O BELUR HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 111. 3. MAXIM NAZARATH S/O SANTAN NAZARATH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O B H ROAD, SAGAR TOWN - 577 401. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K H IMTIYAZ S/O K HASAN SAB AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 3RD CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR SAGAR TOWN SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 401. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 2. RAJINA NAZARATH S/O FRANCIS RODRIGHS ADULT NO.31/593, 1ST STAGE, 14TH MAIN, BRUNDAVAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. SINCE R2 IS DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS WHO ARE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ALREADY ON RECORD ACCORDINGLY THIS NOTE MADE AS PER ORDER DATED 12.11.2025 2.1. HILARI NAZARATH S/O SANTAN NAZARATH 2.2. FELIX NAZARATH S/O SANTHAN NAZARATH 2.3. MAXIMA NAZRATH S/O SANTHAN NAZARATH 3. MERI NAZARATH W/O R.S.GONSALVIS ADULT AGED MAJOR, MARCY COLLEGE, TAYYAUPALYA HONNAVARA KARWAR DISTRICT - 581 334. 4. HELEN NAZARATH W/O ALBERT PINTO ADULT, AGED MAJOR, D.NO.458, BRUNDAVAN NAGAR H.B.R.LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 043. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 5. PRESILLA NAZARATH W/O PHILIP PINTO ADULT, AGED MAJOR, 6. JASINTHA NAZARTH W/O HENRI NORONNA ADULT, AGED MAJOR, 7. ALIS NAZARTH W/O FEDRIK RODRIGS ADULT, AGED MAJOR, R5 TO R7 ARE R/AT NO. 31-539, 1ST STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, YASIN NAGAR, 14TH MAIN, BRUNDAVA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. 8. ANNI NAZARATH D/O SANTHA NAZARATH AGED MAJOR, C/O R.F.GEORGE ANDRADE TEMPLE OF ST. ANTHONI, H N PURAM, HASSAN - 573 111. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRITHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - ABSENT R3 TO R5, R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED SRI. H.R. SHRIDHARAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R6 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025 P1 TO P3 AND R3 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R2) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2018 PASSED IN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 OS.NO.58/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SAGAR, AFFIRMATIVELY ANSWERING PRELIMINARY ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER 1. Heard Sri. R. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. 2. Defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S. No.58/2014 are the revision petitioners challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 04.09.2018 in this revision petition whereby preliminary issues of jurisdiction and court fee is held against the defendant. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 3.1 A suit came to be filed by the first respondent in O.S.No.58/2014 with the following prayer in respect of following immovable property: PRAYER: a. To declare that the Defendants 1 to 3 became the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Will dated 25.04.1988, on the death of Santhan Nazrath. b(i) Consequentially for a declaration that the judgment and decree passed in OS. 2/2010 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Sagar is the result of the collusion between the Defendants 1 to 3 on the one side and Defendants 4 to 10 on the other side b(ii) Consequentially for a declaration, that the judgment and decree obtained in to O.S. 2/2010 is not binding on the Plaintiff and that therefore, it would not affect enforceability of the decree passed in O.S.26/2010 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge Sagar, by the Plaintiff against the Defendants 1 to 3. c) Such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble court be pleased to mould and to grant having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable to the fact situation including the costs of the suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 SCHEDULE Site bearing No.98 measuring 40'x120' with a structure thereon measuring 20'x30' bearing khatha No.388/387/351 situated at 12th Ward, Joseph Nagar, B.H.Road, Sagar city, bounded on the East : Property of Henri Mensis, West: Property of K.H.Harun North: Conservancy South: B.H.Road, 4. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property consists of a dilapidated building measuring 40 feet x 120 feet on B.H. Road, Sagar. Defendants No.1 to 3 derived the suit property by a registered Will dated 25.04.1988 executed by their late father Santhan Nazrath. After passing away of Sri. Santhan Nazrath, in recognition of the acquisition of title, defendants No.1 to 3 under registered Will dated 25.04.1988 executed by Sri. Santhan Naarath mutated the revenue entries. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 5. There was an agreement on 31.08.2009 wherein defendants No.1 to 3 agreed to receive the balance sale consideration and agreed to sell the property. 6. When there was a refusal to do so, the suit came to be filed. 7. Defendants No.1 to 3 filed a common written statement denying the plaint averments except admitting that they are the owners of the property. 8. They also contended that the Court has no jurisdiction and the Court fee paid on the plaint is incorrect. 9. Based on the same, the learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues. Among them, question of jurisdiction and Court fee was treated as preliminary issues at the request of defendants No.1 to 3. 10. Learned trial judge heard the objections raised by the defendants No.1 to 3 on the preliminary issue - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 number 1 and 2. Thereafter, the Order came to be passed holding preliminary issue Nos.1 and 2 against the defendants No.1 to 3 in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 which reads as under: " 7. Preliminary Issue No.1: Defendant No.8 in her written statement has barely contended that this court has no jurisdiction to try this case. Defendant No.8 has failed to state how this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. That on perusal of the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that this court has got jurisdiction to try this suit. Accordingly, I answered the preliminary issue No 1 in the Affirmative. 8. Preliminary Issue No.2: Learned advocate for defendant Nos. 1 to 3 has vehemently argued that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the para No.22(b)(i) and (b)(ii) of the plaint are not the consequential reliefs, they are the independent reliefs and the said reliefs are to be valued separately. That on perusal of the entire materials on record, I am of the opinion that the reliefs sought in para No. 22(b)(i) and (b)(ii) of the plaint are the consequential reliefs and they are not une independent reneis. Hence, I am of the opinion that the contentions of the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the said reliefs are independent reifies and they are to be valued separately is not sustainable under law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 9. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has properly valued the suit and the court fee paid on the plaint is sufficient. Accordingly, I answered the preliminary additional issue No.2 in the Affirmative. Hence, I proceed to pass the following; Preliminary issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in Affirmative. For further examination in chief of PW1 as a last chance and finally by 12.09.2018." 11. Being aggrieved by the same, defendants No.1 to 3 are before this Court in this revision petition. 12. Sri. R. Gopal, that counsel for the revision petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contented that the jurisdiction the trial Court had no jurisdiction but also the plaint is undervalued and deficit Court fee is not paid on the consequential reliefs. 13. He would further contend that learned Trial Judge holding in paragraph No.8 that the consequential reliefs are covered by Sections 22(b)(i) and 22 (b)(ii) are - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 not consequential reliefs and therefore Court fee paid sufficient. 14. Respondent counsel for first respondent is absent today. 15. In the light of the argument put-forth on behalf of the revision petitioners, this Court perused the material evidence on record meticulously. 16. On such perusal of the material evidence on record, it is crystal clear that the plaint prayer is specific. Consequential reliefs thus would merge with the main tria prayer. 17. So far as jurisdiction is concerned, except stating that the Court has no jurisdiction, there is no other material on record placed by the revision petitioners to substantiate that the Trial Court had no either territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48729 CRP No. 561 of 2018 18. Further, question of Court fee is always between the plaintiff and the Court. Defendant can no doubt point out that there is a deficit payment of Court fee. 19. In the case on hand, learned trial Judge has rightly opined that the consequential reliefs are ancillary reliefs to the main prayer. 20. As such, the Court fee paid is sufficient is the opinion of the Trial court which requires no interference by this Court in this revision. 21. Hence, following order: ORDER (i) Revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SNC ct:SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25