- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 27300 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE BORANNA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/AT NO. 30, 1st MAIN ROAD, 7th CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078. 2. SRI. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O LATE BORANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO. 30, 1st MAIN ROAD, 7th CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078. 3. SMT. B L SUMITHA, W/O SRI. GANGADHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO. 26 GURUPRIYA MANSION, YELACHENAHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT B SUJATHA W/O H C KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, JYOTHI LAYOUT, YELACHENAHALLI, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 KRISHNADEVARAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078. 2. SMT SUVITHA, W/O SRI. Y VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT YALAKKI GANIGARA PALYA, BANASHANKARI 6th STAGE, 4th D BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJA H C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/10/2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANGAR IN OS 94/2015 ON THE MEMO (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed by defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 assailing order dated 09.10.2023 passed on the memo dated 07.06.2023 filed in O.S.No.94/2015 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 3. Respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.94/2015 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Ramanagara seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect to the suit schedule property. Contesting defendants have entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. It appears that a memo dated 07.06.2023 was filed in O.S.No.94/2015 by the petitioners herein alleging that proper court fee was not paid by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments addressed on both sides, has rejected the said memo vide the order impugned. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners who are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 in O.S.No.94/2015 are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit is filed for cancellation of the gift deed. Therefore, court fee had to be paid as provided under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'). The suit is valued for the purpose of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 court fee under Section 24(d) of the Act, which is not permissible. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of SHRI.MADAN DATTARAM DESHPANDE VS. SMT.SAROJYA AND OTHERS, in CRP.No.253/2008 disposed of on 04.09.2015 and ASUNTHA D'SOUZA VS. JOYCE PAKSINA D'SOUZA NEE D.MELLO AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2017 Karnataka 2657. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the order impugned. 6. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.94/2015 would go to show that the plaintiff has sought to grant a judgment and decree declaring the gift deed dated 08.09.2014 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Ramanagara as null and void and also has sought for a decree of consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. From a reading of the reliefs prayed for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 in the suit, it is very clear that the suit is filed seeking a decree of declaration as well as permanent injunction and no relief is sought for cancellation of the gift deed. Therefore, section 38 of the Act does not get attracted for the purpose of payment of court fee in the present case. 7. When a suit is filed for declaration and for possession the same is required to be valued for the purpose of court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act and when the suit is filed seeking the relief of declaration and consequential injunction, the suit is required to be valued for the purpose of court fee as provided under Section 24(b). In cases which are not covered either under Section 24(a) or under 24(b), then Section 24(d) would be applicable. In the present case, the plaintiff has valued the suit as provided under Section 24(d) of the Act for the purpose of payment of the court fee and the Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly rejected the memo dated 07.06.2023 filed on behalf of the defendant. Even - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 otherwise if the suit were to be valued as provided under Section 24(a) or under 24(b) of the Act, since the suit schedule property is an agricultural land, then Section 7(2) of the Act gets attracted and therefore, court fee is not required to be paid on the market value of the suit schedule property. 8. In the case of ASUNTHA D'SOUZA (Supra), this Court was considering payment of court fee in a suit filed for cancellation of gift deed, whereas no such relief is sought for in the present case. Therefore, the judgment in the case of ASUNTHA D'SOUZA (Supra) on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present case. In the case of SHRI.MADAN DATTARAM DESHPANDE (Supra) this Court has considered the question of payment of court fee in a suit filed for declaration and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case, it was held, since the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction was sought in the said suit, the suit was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51691 WP No. 27300 of 2023 required to be valued as provided in Section 24(b) of the Act and not 24(d). Even the said judgment cannot not be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, I do not find merit in this writ petition. According, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A's, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27