HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 15066 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: GAFFAR KHAN @ MATTAN S/O YAKUB KHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O II CROSS, WADI -E-HUDA SHIVAMOGGA 577201 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER FAYAZ AHMAED, S/O AMEER JAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O III CROSS, WADI E-HUDA SHIVAMOGGA 577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P N HARISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MEHEBOOB ALI S/O KHADAR BASHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NEAR FURKHAN MASJID II STAGE, DR. RML NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA 577201. 2. MOHAMMED WAHEED S/O RAHIM SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. ZAREENA BEE W/O MOHAMMED WAHID AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 2 - RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF URGADUR POST MADARIPALYA SHIVAMOGGA 577201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH M., ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.08.2021, NOTICE TO R2 & R3 IS WAIVED) *** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2021 PASSED BY COURT OF LEARNED V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA IN O.S.NO.509/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER I.A. NO.4 IN O.S.NO.509/2018 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-C. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the learned V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.509 /2018 [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an application under Order VII Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”], HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 3 - filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 for return of the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, has been rejected. 2. This Court, by its order dated 19.08.2021, had directed a stay of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court and the said interim order has continued as is since then. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 makes only one submission. He submits that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the Impugned Order since the prayers that were sought for by the petitioner/defendant No.3 were not adjudicated upon. The learned counsel submits that the application that was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 was for return of plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, since the matter was filed in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge & JMFC, Shivamogga, while in terms of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuations Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as the “KCF & SV Act”], all matters above the value of a sum of ₹5,00,000/- have to be filed before the Court of Senior HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 4 - Civil Judge. The learned counsel seeks to rely upon the Karnataka Civil Courts Act, 1964, more specifically, Section 17 of the same, which sets out that the subject matter of a Civil Judge shall not exceed beyond a sum of ₹5,00,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that although the plaint has been filed for specific performance as well as declaration, the prayer for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 30.06.2008 is valued at ₹3,60,000/-. The sale Deed dated 21.09.2016, in terms of which the prayer of declaration is also sought for in the plaint, is valued at ₹20,00,000/-. Thus, he submits that the value of the suit would have to be taken on the higher of the two values and the jurisdiction would be of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that he does not dispute the fact that the sale deed dated 21.09.2016 has the subject value of ₹20,00,000/-. He also does not dispute the fact that the declaration has been sought for by the respondent HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 5 - No.1/plaintiff, seeking to declare the sale deed as null and void. However, the learned counsel contends that insofar as it concerns prayer (a) of the suit, the value is ₹3,60,000/-. 5. The application filed under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC, which has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 sets out that the plaint is to be returned for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, which is explained in the affidavit that the registered sale deed as executed, has a sale consideration of ₹20,00,000/- and hence the Court of the Junior Civil Judge does not have a pecuniary jurisdiction to try the same. The relevant extract of the application and the affidavit is set out below: APPLICATION “That for the reason stated in the accompanying Affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to return the plaint for want of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court by allowing this application in the ends of justice.” AFFIDAVIT “..I am the GPA Holder of defendant No.3 in the above case and hence fully conversant with the fact of the case. I submit that the plaintiff has filed this for the relief of specific performance of contract of alleged sale Agreement dated 30-06-2016 and also for the relief of declaration HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 6 - that the registered sale deed dated 21-09-2016 executed by the defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of the defendant No.3 is void and not binding on plaintiff. I submit that, the aforesaid registered sale deed in respect of which the relief of declaration has been sought had been executed for a sale consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- and hence this Hon’ble court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. But the plaintiff has intentionally suppressed the said sale consideration and also withheld production of copy of the said sale deed though there is pleading in that regard and relief has been sought pertaining to that sale deed…” 7. The learned Trial Court has examined the above aspect and held that the suit is valued under Section 24(d) of the KCF & SV Act and thus the valuation is with respect to the prayer (a) which is ₹3,60,000/-. It is apposite to set out prayer (a) to (d) of the suit below: “a) To pass a judgment and decree directing the defendant No.1 and No.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the agreement dated:30-06- 2008 in respect of the schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) within the time fixed by the Hon’ble Court: b) In case the defendant No.1 and No.2 fails to execute the sale deed as directed above, direct an officer of this Hon’ble Court to execute the sale deed for and on behalf of the defendant No.1 and No.2 in respect of the plaint schedule property, free from all encumbrances, at the cost of the plaintiff: c) Put the plaintiff in vacant possession of the plaint schedule property: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 7 - d) To declare that alleged ‘Sale’ bearing Registration No.6170/2016, dated: 21-09-2016, executed by the defendant No.1 and No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 is void and not binding on plaintiff’s.” 8. However, the Court has not taken into consideration that the subject matter/valuation of the suit for declaration is ₹20,00,000/- and not ₹3,60,000/-. 9. Concededly, while the value of the prayer (a) would be ₹3,60,000/-, the value of the prayer (d) is ₹20,00,000/-. However, the learned Trial Court has given a finding that in the case on hand, the petitioner/ defendant No.3 is seeking that a Sale Deed of the year 2016 to be declared as null and void. Thus, Section 24(d) of the KCF & SV Act, is applicable. 10. Undisputedly, the value of the sale deed dated 21.09.2016 is ₹20,00,000/-. However, since the learned Trial Court has not examined separately the two prayers [i.e. prayer (a) and prayer (d)] and valuation of both the prayers, independently, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside with the following directions: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10393 WP No. 15066 of 2021 - 8 - (i) The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court, on the date already fixed. (ii) The learned Trial Court shall give a reasoned finding on whether the valuation is to be as per prayer (a) or prayer (d) in the plaint or a combination of both? (iii) The learned Trial Court will also give a finding on whether it would continue to have the pecuniary jurisdiction on the value of the suit [in terms of prayer (a) and prayer (d)] to adjudicate the matter. 11. The petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* / KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA