- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2133 OF 2024 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: SRI. B.R. SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT NO. 539, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, R T NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRINIVASAIAH M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. HEMANTH S/O LATE DORAISWAMY RAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. MAHESH S/O LATE DORAISWAMY RAJU AGED 40 YEARS 3. ANAND S/O LATE DORAISWAMY RAJU, AGED 38 YEARS, NO.1 to 3 ARE R/AT 526/2 14TH CROSS, I MAIN ROAD, SHASTRI NAGAR, Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 BANGALORE - 560 023. 4. SRI. ANAND RAJU, S/O SRI K.V.N RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 3, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANOHAR B.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. ABHINAY Y.T, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED IMPLEADING APPLICANT I.E., R5 TO R7 IN IA 3/25 ) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED ON IA NO.2 AND 3 IN OS NO.1806/2014 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU., ALLOWING THE IA NO.2 AND 3 FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(d) OF CPC., FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT While this appeal is being extensively heard, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicants and learned counsel for the respondents have brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff could not have maintained an appeal before this Court. Referring to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 valuation slip, both counsel arguing in the same vein have pointed out that the relief of declaration of ownership being the main relief was valued at ₹25 under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Valuation Act, (for short, 'Act') and for the purpose of jurisdiction the main relief was valued at ₹7,00,000 while the cancellation of sale deed dated 11.05.2000 was also valued at ₹4,80,000 for the purpose of jurisdiction. 2. Against rejection of plaint, the appellant rightly approached the district court by preferring an appeal under Section 96. The appellate court, unfortunately, by aggregating the valuation submitted for the purpose of jurisdiction, was of the view that the suit is valued at ₹11,80,000 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was held to be not maintainable pursuant to the order passed by the district court. Hence, the appellant has filed the appeal before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 3. Upon meticulous examination of the valuation slip annexed to the plaint, this Court finds a rather unusual and questionable approach adopted by the plaintiff in tendering two separate valuations for the purpose of determining pecuniary jurisdiction. Specifically, while the suit has been valued at ₹7,00,000 for the relief of declaration, a distinct and separate valuation of ₹4,80,000 has been assigned for the relief of cancellation of the sale deed. This bifurcated valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction ostensibly for the same cause of action has created ambiguity with respect to the forum of appellate jurisdiction. This Court is constrained to observe that such a dual valuation, insofar as it relates to the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction, is fundamentally flawed and borders on procedural impropriety. 4. Though the plaintiff has furnished two separate valuations for the purpose of jurisdiction for two different reliefs arising out of the same cause of action, it is a settled position that for the purposes of determining the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 appropriate appellate forum based on pecuniary jurisdiction, such individual valuations on pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be aggregated. Section 6(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, no doubt contemplates that where multiple reliefs are claimed in a suit, the court fee shall be payable on the aggregate value of the reliefs claimed. However, it is crucial to distinguish between computation of court fees and the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction for the purposes of appeal. 5. In this regard, the law is well settled that while aggregation of reliefs may be permissible for the purpose of calculating the court fee under Section 6(1) of the Act, such a method cannot be applied for determining pecuniary jurisdiction. For the purpose of appellate jurisdiction, the correct approach is to consider the highest among the various valuations furnished in respect of distinct reliefs claimed in the suit. The aggregation of different valuations to artificially confer jurisdiction upon a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 particular forum, particularly a higher court, is impermissible in law and cannot be sustained. 6. In the present case, even though two valuations have been furnished, it is only the higher of the two namely, ₹7,00,000, that can be taken into account for deciding the forum of appeal. Since the said amount falls within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction exercisable by the District Court, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court and ought to have been preferred before the jurisdictional District Court. 7. However, taking note of the bona fide conduct of the plaintiff and in order to avoid any prejudice due to the time spent in prosecuting the matter before this Court under a mistaken impression of jurisdiction, this Court deems it appropriate to invoke the protective umbrella of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to prefer an appeal before the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 District Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within the said period, the District Court shall exclude the period spent by the plaintiff in prosecuting the present appeal before this Court while computing the period of limitation. 8. In view of the above observations, the present appeal is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, reserving liberty to the plaintiff to prefer a fresh appeal before the jurisdictional District Court. The registry is to forthwith return the certified copies after securing the photocopies. The interim order granted by this Court shall stay in operation for the period of six weeks. In view of the order passed supra, the impleading applicants are reserved with liberty to move a similar application in the event the plaintiff chooses to prefer an appeal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25694 RFA No. 2133 of 2024 The registry is directed to refund the court fee in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK