- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 7386 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE KALACHARI (ABATED) SINCE HER LRS ALREADY ON RECORD AS PETITIONER NO.2 TO 7. SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI KRISHNACHARI. 2. SRI K. KRISHNACHARI S/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST. 3. 3a. SRI MANJAPPACHAR S/O LATE KALACHARI SINCE DEAD HIS LRS. SMT. RATHNA W/O MANAJAPPACHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST. 3b. SRI PRADEEP S/O LATE MANJAPPACHAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST. 3c. SMT. PREMA D/O LATE MANJAPPACHAR AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST. 4. SMT. SHARADA D/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI KRISHNACHARI. 5. SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI KRISHNACHARI. 6. K. RAMESHA S/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI KRISHNACHARI. 7. SMT. ANNAPOORNA D/O LATE KALACHARI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT GERUMAKKI (THIPPAGAL) KIGGA POST, KIGGA HOBLI SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DIST REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI KRISHNACHARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SYED ANSER KALEEM, ADV., FOR P-1, P-2 TO P-4; SRI K.S. GANESHA, ADV., FOR P-2) AND: 1. SRI JNANESH HEBBAR S/O LATE H. KRISHNAIAH HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A KIGGA IN MARKAL VILLAGE KIGGA POST, SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKARA HEBBAR S/O LATE H KRISHNAIAH HEBBAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/A KIGGA IN MARKAL VILLAGE KIGGA POST, SRINGERI TALUK - 577 139 CHIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D.T. NANJESH GOWDA, ADV., FOR SRI VISHNES BHAT, ADV.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.14.2.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SRINGERI ON IA NO.11 AND 12 IN O.S.NO.48/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants with a prayer to set aside the order dated 14.02.2020 passed on IA nos.11 & 12 in O.S.No.48/2014 by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC at Sringeri. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. O.S.No.48/2014 is filed by the respondents herein against the petitioners seeking the relief of possession of the suit schedule property. The contesting defendants has opposed the suit claim by filing written statement. When the suit was at the stage of defendants' evidence, IA no.11 was filed on behalf of the defendants under Order XIV Rules 1, 3 & 5 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to frame an additional issue regarding valuation of the suit and sufficiency of court fee paid by the plaintiff. IA-12 was filed on behalf of the defendants under Sections 7(2)(d), 24(d), 29 & 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act') and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 Section 151 of CPC, to direct the plaintiffs to pay proper court fee on the plaint. The prayers made in IA nos.11 & 12 were opposed by the plaintiffs by filing common objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected IA nos.11 & 12 filed in O.S.No.48/2014 and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that during the course of deposition, the plaintiff has categorically admitted that the value of the suit schedule property was more than Rs.10 lakhs at the time of filing the suit, and therefore, plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee on the market value of the property. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting IA nos.11 & 12 filed on behalf of the defendants. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs has argued in support of the order impugned. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 6. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.48/2014 would go to show that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property consisting of paddy field, cattle shed and a farm house totally measuring 15 guntas in Sy.No.9/1 of Markal village in Sringeri Taluk. 7. Section 29 of the Act provides for payment of court fee in respect of suit for possession not otherwise provided for. The said provision states that in a suit for possession of immovable property, not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on Rs.1,000/-, whichever is higher. 8. Section 7 of the Act provides for determination of market value. Section 7.2 of the Act reads as under: (2) The market value of land 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,— (a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Deputy Commissioner’s register - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled— twenty-five times the revenue so payable; (b) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not permanently-twelve and a half times the revenue so payable; (c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue-fifteen times the net profits if any from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint or thirty times the revenue payable on the same extent of similar land in the neighbourhood, whichever is lower; (d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as above mentioned or the land is a garden or the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, or is land not falling within the foregoing description—the market value of the land. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 Explanation.—The word “estate”, as used in this section means any land subject to the payment of revenue, for which the proprietor or farmer or raiyat shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which in the absence of such engagement shall have been separately assessed with revenue. 9. A reading of Section 7(2) of the Act would go to show that in a suit which falls under Section 29 of the Act, the market value of the land shall be deemed to be as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the court fee is paid in the present case, under Section 7(2)(b), which is in accordance with law. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter, has rightly rejected the prayers made by the defendants in IA nos.11 & 12 filed in O.S.No.48/2014. 10. It is also relevant to note here that the defendants had earlier filed O.S.No.115/2004 for declaration and injunction in respect of the very same property. The relief of declaration of title was sought on the basis of the alleged adverse possession of the property in question by the defendant. The said suit was valued as provided under Section 24(b) of the Act, and in view - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43864 WP No. 7386 of 2021 of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, court fee of Rs.50/- was paid by the defendants in O.S.No.115/2004. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing IA nos.11 & 12 and the said order does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK