- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 18371 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI MUNNEGOWDA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BANNDE HOSUR VILLAGE KANNUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 562 149. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B. MANJUNATH, ADV.) AND: 1. SRI RAMDASS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SMT. PREMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 3. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. 4. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 5. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT BANNDE HOSUR VILLAGE, KANNUR POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022 BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 562 149. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA (VK NOT FILED) V/O DTD:04.08.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDETS D/W) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALURU RURAL IN O.S.NO.682/2022 DTD.20.7.2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.682 of 2022 passed by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent - State. 3. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.682 of 2022 before Jurisdictional civil Court, Bangalore Rural District, seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule 'B' property. In the said suit, the order impugned has been passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner / plaintiff to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022 pay the deficit Court fee and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that suit schedule property is an agricultural property and though the reliefs sought for in the suit is required to be valued as provided under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1958' for short). the Court fee payable shall be as provided under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. He submits that petitioner has filed another suit in O.S.No.91 of 2022 before the very same Court in respect of adjacent property and in the said suit also, Court fee was paid by the petitioner / plaintiff as provided under Section 24(a) R/w Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA has argued in support of the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022 6. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.682 of 2022 would go to show that suit schedule property is an agricultural property and the petitioner has produced the copy of the RTC extract of the suit schedule property at Annexure - F to this petition. Petitioner has sought for the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore the Court fee payable would be as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act, 1958. Section 7 of the Act of 1958 provides for determination of the market value and Section 7(2) provides that market value of lands in suits falling under Sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be where the lands forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to the government then 25 times the revenue so paid shall be the market value of the property. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 7. Section 24(a) of the Act, 1958 provides that Court fee shall be payable on the market value of the property whereas Section 7(2) of Act provides that market value of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022 property in suits which fall under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958 shall be deemed to be 25 times the revenue so payable where the land forms an entire estate paying annual revenue to the Government. In addition to the same, material on record would go to show that before the very same Court suit in O.S.No.91 of 2022, which is filed by the petitioner herein seeking a similar relief in respect of a adjacent property, Court fee has been paid by valuing the suit schedule property as provided under Section 24(a) R/w Section 7(2) of the Act, 1958. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order and directing the petitioner to pay Court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958 without appreciating that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property and therefore the market value of the property should be determined as provided under Section 7(2) of Act of 1958. 8. Accordingly the following:- ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022 (ii) The impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.682 of 2022 passed by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside. Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same are disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44