- 1 - CRP No. 100094/2023 RESERVED ON : 22.09.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 26.09.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100094 OF 2023 BETWEEN: BASAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA PANDROLLI AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591224 …PETITIONER (BY SRI VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: HANAMANT S/O. ADIVEPPA YAKKUNDI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. GOURAWWA W/O. HANAMANTH YAKKUNDI AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 2. KHASHEVVA W/O. SIDDAPPA KALLIMANI AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 3. RAJU S/O. HANAMANTH YAKKUNDI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.26 14:38:12 +0530 - 2 - CRP No. 100094/2023 R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 4. VITTAL S/O. HANAMANTH YAKKUNDI AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 5. LAXMI W/O. TUKKAPPA BUDNI AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 6. BASAPPA S/O. ADIVEPPA YAKKUNDI AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 7. JOTEPPA S/O. BASAPPA YAKKUNDI AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. 8. BAIRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA YAKKUNDI AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. RAJAPUR VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI 591224. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI C.S. SHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3.) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES NO.3 AND 5 DATED 10.08.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.313/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL - 3 - CRP No. 100094/2023 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GOKAK, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak, on Issue Nos.3 and 5 in O.S.No.313/2020. 3. Brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 5 have filed suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have preferential right to purchase the suit schedule property and to declare that the sale deed dated 28.07.2020 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is void and in contravention of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants appeared and denied the - 4 - CRP No. 100094/2023 entire averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit is not maintainable after partition and further contended that the Court fee paid is not proper and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as 07 issues. Out of them, Issue Nos.3 and 5 were treated as preliminary issues. Having heard the arguments on preliminary issues, the trial Court has answered Issue Nos.3 and 5 in the negative. Being aggrieved by this order, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the impugned order of the trial Court is illegal, perverse, contrary to law, principles of prepositions of law and contrary to the documentary evidence on record. The whole procedure adopted and followed by the trial court is off the records and against the provisions of law. The impugned order is without application of judicious mind and without considering the material documents on - 5 - CRP No. 100094/2023 record and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The trial Court has given much weight to the say of the plaintiffs and has brushed aside the facts and circumstances of the case, which has vitiated the entire proceedings and contrary to the settled principles of law, the trial Court has committed error in law by misreading the plaint. Whereas, the respondents have filed suit for declaration and injunction claiming preferential right to purchase the suit schedule property under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The trial Court has erred in not considering that during the lifetime of Adiveppa, partitioned R.S.No.55 between the sons i.e. Basappa, Hanmant, Ramappa and Gurappa got partitioned, got 02 strips of land which are measuring 04 acres 10 guntas and 02 acres 04 guntas and said strip of lands measuring 04 acres 10 guntas and 02 acres 04 guntas are fallen to the share of Basappa/defendant No.1 and were numbered as R.S.Nos.55/2 and 55/6. The name of plaintiff and defendant No.1 came to be mutated. Hence, after partition the suit seeking preferential right under Section 22 of the - 6 - CRP No. 100094/2023 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is not maintainable. The trial Court erred in not considering that the plaintiff ought to have paid the Court fee under Section 31 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The trial Court has not assigned any judicious reasons for answering Issue Nos.3 and 5 in the negative and sought for allowing this petition. 6. To substantiate his arguments and the contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions. i) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Chhatoi vs. Adikanda Chhatoi and others, reported in AIR 1988 Orissa 285; ii) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnapada Roy alias Saha and another vs. Parimal Chandra Saha and another, reported in AIR 2000 Gauhati 117; iii) Judgment of this Court in Maruti S/o.Govind More vs. Shri Uttam S/o.Sadashiv More and another, dated 20.02.2023, in MFA No.104393/2022 (CPC). - 7 - CRP No. 100094/2023 7. As against this, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the suit schedule property is not subjected to partition. It is only a matter of trial. The trial Court has properly appreciated the materials on record. Absolutely there are no grounds to allow this revision petition and sought for dismissal of this revision petition. 8. I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have preferential right to purchase the suit schedule property and to declare that the sale deed dated 28.07.2020 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 is void and in contravention of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendants appeared before the Court and filed their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as 07 issues, out of them Issue Nos.3 and 5 were treated as preliminary issues, which read as under: - 8 - CRP No. 100094/2023 “Issue No.3: Whether the defendants prove that for the reasons stated in para 3 of their written statement, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? Issue No.5: Whether the defendants prove that court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?” 9. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, the trial Court has given its finding as negative. In paragraph Nos.5 and 6 the trial Court has observed as under. “5. As could be seen from the averments of the plaint, the suit is filed to declare the sale deed dated 28.07.2020 executed by the defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the 4th defendant as void and in contravention of the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. It is contended in the written statement of the defendants that, in view of the partition the plaintiff is not entitled for preferential right as contemplated under the said provision. But, as could be seen from the said provision, it does not bar the plaintiff to seek such relief in view of the partition, and the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 is not denied by the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff being the class-l legal heir of his father can claim a preferential right as contemplated under the said provision. The only intention of bringing such provision is to prevent the heirs other than the transferor from being compelled to be in joint - 9 - CRP No. 100094/2023 enjoyment of property with a stranger or other person with whom the plaintiff does not wish to associate himself. Further, in the case of the family members, if anybody wants to sell the property inherited by him, a duty is casted upon him to offer other family member to purchase the property. If he does not wish to do so, then the seller is at liberty to sell the property to any person other than the family member. In the case at hand, it is not the case of the defendants 1 and 3 that they have made such offer. Therefore, the suit is absolutely maintainable under the said provision and the contention raised by the defendants in respect of maintainable of the suit does not hold water. 6. Further, the defendants have contended in their written statement that the relief sought is for declaration of the alleged sale deed as void. Therefore, the plaintiff has to pay court fee on Rs.16,15,000/- and the court fee paid Under Section 24 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, is not proper and correct. It is well settled that the person, who is not a party to the sale deed no need to seek for it's cancellation and in such case, he can pay court fee for the relief of declaration only. In the case at hand, the material on record goes to show that the plaintiff is not the party to the alleged sale deed. Therefore, even if he has sought for cancellation of the same there is no need to pay court fee on the market value of the suit property. The plaintiff has paid the court fee under section 24 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, by valuing the suit for Rs.1,000/- for the purpose of the court fee and paid fixed court fee of Rs.25/-. For the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit is valued for Rs.10,15,000/- i.e., the valuation fixed under the alleged sale deed. The relief of - 10 - CRP No. 100094/2023 mandatory injunction being consequential relief no need to pay court fee on the same. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has valued the suit properly and paid sufficient court fee. Hence, the contention raised by the defendants in this regard holds no water…” 10. In view of the said finding, IA was rejected. On a careful examination of the impugned order passed by the trial Court, I do not find any legal infirmities/illegalities. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is dismissed. ii) In view of disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MRK CT-CMU