- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 388 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O SMT.H.M.SUJATHA AND SHRI G.S.SHIVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DODDAMANE FARM HOUSE, IN SY NO.34, 35, 38 AND 39, GURUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.1065, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 79. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.7/2, “SURYA CHAMBERS” 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, THE KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES HOUSING BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO.7/2, “SURYA CHAMBERS” 2ND FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 020. 3. SRI. H.N.LAKSHMANA MURTHY, S/O SHRI H.C.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.318, GROUND FLOOR, 2ND G CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD BENGALURU – 560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH -11), IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 19/2024, DATED 09/04/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Chandrashekar L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.B.V.Vidyulatha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Review Petition No.19/2024 by the VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-11). The petitioner is said to have instituted O.S.No.3887/2010. The concerned Court on 23.10.2024 once again adjudicates the issue of court fee while rendering the final judgment. The reasons so rendered in the order dated 23.10.2024 run counter to the earlier order which had accepted the court fee. Therefore, the petitioner preferred Review Petition on 27.10.2024. This comes to be rejected on 09.04.2025 holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to allow the review. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue regarding court fee was dealt with by the very same Court on 29.01.2019 by a detailed order which had observed that the court fee that was paid was in accordance with law. Therefore, there was no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same issue, recall its own order and after the order having attained finality, the concerned Court quotes section 19 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 which holds that it has jurisdiction to recall its order. Learned counsel would submit that on 29.01.2019, had followed the judgment of the Apex Court in SATHEEDEVI vs. PRASANNA AND ANOTHER, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2777 and a judgment of this Court reported in SMT.ANANDAMMA AND OTHERS vs. SHARADA ALIAS MUNITHAYAMMA, reported in 2011 (1) KCCR 52, it is held that the court fee has to be upon a document and not upon the market value of the property on the said date. The learned counsel would submit that the order in review has to be set aside, so also the order that adjudicates the issue all over again. The learned counsel Smt.B.V.Vidyulatha would fairly admit the position of law holding that the court fee was adjudicated in terms of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 afore-quoted judgments. Therefore, the issue now lies in a narrow compass. The first adjudication of court fee happens on 29.01.2019. The order reads as follows: “O R D E R The Plaintiffs amended the prayer for 'Declaration with Possession'. 2) The office has calculated the court fee as per guidance value of the year 2011. 3) Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act states that, in a suit for cancellation of document, fee shall be computed on the value of. the subject matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be the amount or value of the property, for which, the document was executed. Section 24(a) of the Act states that, "where the prayer is for a declaration and possession of the property, to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or of Rs.1,000/- whichever is higher". 4) The Plaintiffs have sought the relief of declaration as to cancellation of Sale Deeds dated 26.09.2002 and 15.06.2004 registered in the names of the 1st and 2nd Defendants in respect of the schedule property. The Plaintiffs have valued the suit on the amount as shown in the subsequent sale deed dated 15.06.2004. Since the sale consideration shown in the subsequent sale deed, dated 15.06.2004 being the highest sale consideration amount as compared to the earlier sale deed dated 26.09.2002, the Plaintiffs paid full court fee of Rs.39,375/- for the relief of declaration as to cancellation of Sale Deeds. 5) Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act states that, where the prayer is for declaration, fee shall be computed on one-half of market value of the property or Rs.1,000/-, whichever is higher. Since the Plaintiffs have sought declaration as to cancellation of Sale Deeds, they have calculated the court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 fee on the amount for which sale deed was executed under Section 24(b) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and paid full court fee, which must be paid if the Plaintiffs seek the relief of declaration and possession as stated in Section 24(a) of the Act. The Plaintiffs, after amending the prayer for declaration and possession, have filed fresh Valuation Slip and valued the suit under Section 24(a) of the Act. Since the full court fee has already been paid by the Plaintiffs at the time of institution of the suit on the amount for which the sale deed was executed, now the only question that falls for consideration is: "Whether the Plaintiffs are required to pay court fee on the basis of the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit or it is sufficient to pay the court fee on the amount for which the document was executed? 6) Section 24(a) of the Act deals with declaration and possession of immovable property. Whereas, Section 38 of the Act deals with cancellation of the Deed. The Plaintiffs have sought the relief of declaration as to cancellation of the Sale Deed and for possession of the suit property. 7). In the case of Satheedevi V. Prasanna and Anr. Reported in AIR 2010 SC 2777, it is held that: "(C) Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (10 of 1960), Ss.40, 7-Court fee - Determination of market value of property - Suit for cancellation of document which creates any right, title or interest in immovable property - Value of property for which document was executed, and not, its market value, is relevant for purpose of Court fee." 8) The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt.Anandamma and Others Vs. Sharada alias Munithayamma reported in 2011(1) KCCR 52 has held that: “Section 38 of the Act specifically provides that in a suit for cancellation of a document which operates to create a title in the immovable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 property and lays down that the fee shall be computed on the value of the property as indicated in the document. And by way of explanation, it is expressed that insofar as a suit for cancellation of a decree and possession of any property is concerned, the fee shall be computed as in a suit for possession of the property. Under Section 24 of the Act, in a suit for declaration of and possession of immovable property, it is certainly the market value of the property, on which the Court fee is required to be paid. In a suit for cancellation of the sale deeds, even though a consequential relief of possession is also sought, it is only under Section 38(1) of the Act the Court fee payable must be computed in view of Explanation (2) to the said Section. The provisions of Section 4(iv) A of 1900 Act, heid, was not applicable in view of Explanation-2 to Section 38 of 1958 Act." (underlined by me) 9) In view of the legal dictum as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in a suit for cancellation of the sale deeds, even though a consequential relief of possession is also sought, it is only under section 38(1) of the Act the court fee payable must be computed in view of explanation (2) to the said Section. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the Plaintiffs ought to have paid the court fee on the amount for which the document has been executed, since their relief is for cancellation of sale deed and consequent possession thereof. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have paid the court fee on the amount as mentioned in the sale deed, dated 15.06.2004. The objection as raised by the office that the Plaintiffs shall have paid the court fee on the basis of market value as per Guidelines Book as on the date of the suit is not tenable, Hence, the objection raised by the office is hereby rejected and accordingly, I hold that the court fee paid by the Plaintiffs is sufficient.” 4. The concerned Court holds the objection raised by the office that the plaintiffs have to pay the court fee on the basis of the market value, is not tenable. Therefore, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 objection raised was over ruled and the court fee was held to be sufficient. The judgment is rendered by the concerned Court on 23.10.2024. While so doing, again takes up the issue of court fee and holds that the court fee is inadequately paid. The concerned Court framing an additional issue at the time of rendering the final judgment has held as follows: “26. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2:- The plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit and payment of Court fee is not sufficient. Initially, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief and valued the suit under Sec.24(b) r/w Sec.38 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and valued the suit for Rs.6 lakhs and paid Court fee of Rs.39,375/-. Subsequently, possession is sought as an alternative relief along with declaration and same valuation is made and additional Court fee is not paid. Once the suit is for declaration and possession Sec.24(a) r/w Sec.38 is applicable. The suit is to be valued under the said provision and Court fee has to be paid on market value of the property or Rs.1,000/- whichever is higher. The plaintiff valued the suit of Rs.6 lakh as a market value. There is no basis to value the suit for Rs.6 lakhs. Rs.6 lakhs is taken on the basis of the defendant No.2 sale deed, sale consideration amount at Ex.P-4 dated 15-06-2004. The suit was filed on 07-06-2010, the market value of the suit schedule property should have been as on the date of presentation of suit and not the sale consideration mentioned in Ex.P-4 sale deed dated 15-06-2004 of defendant No.2. Therefore, the plaintiff all to value the suit on market value as on presentation of suit under Sec.24(a) r/w Sec.38 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and to pay the Court fee accordingly. To that extent the valuation and payment of Court fee is not sufficient and answered the same in partly Affirmative.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 5. The petitioner being shocked on the final judgment again considering the court fee which was already held and affirmed, files a Review Petition in R.P.No.19/2024. The Review Petition is rejected by the following reasons: “…The Court fee is a matter of public revenue; where public revenue is likely to be affected, the Court has been given wide powers to prevent it. In the instant case the Court while passing a judgment and answering additional issue No.2 has observed that payment of Court fee is not correct and ought to have valued the suit under Sec.24(a) r/w Sec.34 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act as on the date of filing of the suit on market value and to pay Court fee and in that view of the matter the Court has satisfied that the payment of Court fee is not sufficient. Therefore, there is no error apparent on face of record to review the order regarding Court fee on additional issue No.2. Accordingly, the ground stated in the review petition is not sustainable, it is open for the petitioner to urge the same before the Appellate Court. Accordingly, answered the point No.1 in the Negative. 11. POINT NO.2: Hence, the following: O R D E R The petition filed under Order 47 rule 1 r/w Sec.114 of CPC is dismissed. No order as to costs.” The concerned Court held that court fee is a matter of public revenue, so notwithstanding the earlier order, court fee has to be paid on the market value. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25286 CRP No. 388 of 2025 6. The reasons so rendered on the face of it run counter to the aforenoted judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court. There is undoubtedly an error apparent on the face of the record for having reviewed the order that had become final with regard to the court fee. In that light, the petition for review deserves to be allowed and the portion that review was sought for, deserves to be recalled. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [i] The Petition is allowed. [ii] The order passed by the VI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-11), in Review Petition No.19/2024 dated 09.04.2025 is hereby quashed. [iii] The order passed by the concerned Court assessing court fee all over again on assumptions and presumptions contrary to law, is to be obliterated. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55