- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30031 W.P. No.1970/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.1970/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: T.R. BHASKAR S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT D NO 123/2 THONACHIKOPPAL MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSURU 570009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.N. UMA SHANKAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. S. SURESH S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO EW-98 10TH CROSS, GANGOTHRI LAYOUT CHAMARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU 570009. 2. C. KOTAPPA S/O CHOWDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO L-31 2ND CROSS, E AND F BLOCK RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU 570023. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30031 W.P. No.1970/2021 3. K. UDAY KUMAR S/O S. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO 123/2 THONACHIKOPPAL MAIN ROAD CHAMARAJAPURA, MYSURU 570009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV., FOR R1 V/O/DTD:02.02.2023, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS D/W) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN M.A.NO.64/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU AND ALSO CALL FOR THE PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.15/2013 ON FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL FIRST CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MYSURU AND AFTER THE EXAMINING THE SAME, QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 IN M.A.NO.64/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, AT MYSURU AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30031 W.P. No.1970/2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.02.2020 passed in M.A.No.64/2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru (for short, ‘the Appellate Court’). 2. Heard Sri.M.N.Uma Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the material available on record. 3. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.15/2013 before the Principal I Civil Judge and JMFC., Mysuru, (for short, 'the trial Court') initially seeking to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.876/2000 dated 24.09.2003, later the suit came to be amended and further relief of declaration was sought declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The said prayer - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30031 W.P. No.1970/2021 is based on the averments made in the plaint, more particularly with reference to para No.5 of the plaint. The plaintiff has specifically made averment that the defendant No.2 sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2009 for a valuable consideration of ₹6,00,000/-. It is to be noticed that the suit is valued by the plaintiff at ₹49,000/- as per the decree in O.S.No.876/2000. Hence, the Court fee of ₹2,925/- was paid. The trial Court, considered the issue of Court fee on the application filed by the defendant No.3 and vide order dated 16.08.2018 recorded a clear finding that the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (for short, ‘the Act’) by considering the market value referred in the sale deed of the plaintiff and further observed that in view of the valuation as ordered, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and returned the plaint to be presented before the proper jurisdictional Court. The said order was assailed before the Appellate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30031 W.P. No.1970/2021 Court in M.A.No.64/2018. The Appellate Court reversed the said finding by applying Section 50 of the Act. 4. It is to be noticed that when the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration based on the sale deed, the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee under Section 24(d) of the Act by valuing the same. If the value of the sale deed is considered, the trial Court at paragraph No.8 of the order has clearly assigned the reason and directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee and ordered to return the plaint. In my considered view, the trial Court is fully justified in doing so. 5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 fairly submits that he would take steps to present the plaint before the appropriate Court by paying the Court fee. 6. Said submission is placed on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30031 W.P. No.1970/2021 7. The petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 26.02.2020 passed in M.A.No.64/2018 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM., Mysuru. 8. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint and all the papers produced to the plaintiff, to enable the plaintiff to present the plaint before the appropriate Court. 9. The respondent No.1-plaintiff is granted one month’s time, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, to present the plaint before the appropriate Court and make good of the Court fee. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20