- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2561 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT GOWRAMMA W/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 2. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SMT GIRIJAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT YEARS 4. SMT CHENNAMMA W/O LATE AMMAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 5. SMT RAJAMMA D/O LATE AMMAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SMT MUNIRATHNAMMA D/O LATE AMMAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. SRI RAJANNA S/O LATE CHIKKANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 8. SRI CHANDRU S/O LATE CHIKKANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 9. SRI RAMAIAH S/O VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 10. SMT NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 11. SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 12. SMT SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 13. SRI RAMESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 14. SRI RAVI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.13 TO 14 ARE CHILDREN OF RAMAIAH 15. SRI JAYARAMAPPA S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 16. SRI MARIYAPPA AGED 68 YEARS 17. SMT KARAGAMMA AGED 58 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 18. SRI VENKATESH AGED 53 YEARS 19. SMT RATHNAMMA AGED 49 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.16 TO 19 ARE THE CHILDREN OF SRI. VENKATASWAMAPPA 20. SMT MUNIYAMMA AGED 82 YEARS W/O SHAMANNA 21. SRI NARAYANA AGED 61 YEARS 22. SRI GOVINDA AGED 59 YEARS 23. SRI KRISHNA S/O. LATE SHAMANNA AGED 57 YEARS 24. SMT CHINNAMMA AGED 53 YEARS 25. SMT CHANDRAMMA AGED 42 YEARS THE PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 25 ARE RESIDING AT JAKKUR VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK PLAINTIFFS NO.1, 8, 11 AND 12 ARE DEAD AND THEIR LRS ARE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD …PETITIONERS - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 (BY SRI. M. VENKATAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR P7, P15 AND P21 SRI. SHUBAM L.B., ADVOCATE FOR P1 TO P6, P8 TO P14, P16 TO P20 AND P22 TO P25) AND: 1. SRI. K. PRAKASH SHETTY S/O SRI. K. MADHAVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.19/2, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 2. M/S BANJARA ENCLAVES PVT LTD OFFICE AT NO.N.G.17 MANIPAL CENTRE DICKENSON ROAD BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K PRAKASH SHETTY S/O LATE K MADHAVA SHETTY 3. SRI B R SHETTY S/O LATE SHAMBU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 4. SRI B S SHETTY S/O LATE SHAMBU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS DEFENDANTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT NO.63, ARTILLERY ROAD ULSOOR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 008. 5. MR BAPTIST D SOUZA S/O LATE MR MARCEL D SOUZA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 R/AT NO.811, NISHANTH 10TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS 3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 034 6. BESTO INFRASTRUCTURE BANGALORE PVT LTD OFFICE AT NO.1143, 2ND CROSS B SK 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI B S ASHOK KUMAR 7. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 8. SMT THIMMAKKA W/O SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 9. SRI VENKATESH S/O SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 10. SMT MUNIRATHNA W/O SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 11. UMESH S/O SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 12. SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA D/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 SL. NO.7 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT NO.109, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, JAKKUR VILLAGE JAKKUR YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 064 13. MRS. CHANDRAKUMAR RAGHURAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O. B. RAGHURAM SHETTY R/AT NO.63, ARTILLERY ROAD ULSOOR BANGALORE - 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER MR. SHISHIR SHETTY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR R13 R1, R5 TO R12 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 06.10.2023, NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORD, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY QUASHING THE SUO- MOTO ORDER DATED 11.11.2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE HONBLE VII ADDL,. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENAGLURU CCH-19 IN O.S.NO.9863/2014 TO DEPOSIT THE COURT FEE AND ETC. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.9863/2014 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short). 2. Heard Sri. M. Venkatappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.13. 3. The petitioners have filed a suit for partition, separate possession, declaration and other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendants filed a detailed written statement. Respondent No.13 claims to be the donee from her husband, who has purchased the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the Trial Court, under the impugned order, suo motu came to the conclusion that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 plaintiffs had not made any averment in the plaint with regard to the joint possession of the suit schedule properties and consequently directed the plaintiffs to make good the Court fee under Sections 35(1) and 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. 4. It is to be noticed that, though the plaintiffs have not made any specific averment in the plaint that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties, however, there are averments in paragraph Nos.2 to 4 and 8 of the plaint with regard to the possession and such averments are required to be gone into by the Trial Court while deciding the suit on merits. 5. Be that as it may, the issue relating to court fee is normally required to be gone into by the Trial Court along with the other issues, as held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of VENKATESH R. DESAI VS. SMT. PUSHPA HOSMANI AND OTHERS1. The Full Bench of this Court, at paragraph No.35, held as under: 1 ILR 2018 Karnataka 5095 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 "35. Accordingly, and in view of the above, we are clearly of the view that by virtue of Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 read with Order XIV Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when an issue of valuation and/or Court fees is raised in a civil suit on the objection of the defendant, the same is not invariably required to be tried as a preliminary issue and before taking evidence on other issues; but could be tried as a preliminary issue if it relates to the jurisdiction and the Trial Court is of the view that the suit or any part thereof could be disposed of on its determination. The reference stands answered accordingly." 6. The reference stands answered accordingly." 6. In view of the enunciation of law laid down by the Full Bench, and keeping in mind the pleadings in the plaint as well as the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that the Trial Court is required to frame an issue on the court fee and adjudicate the said issue along with the other issues by permitting the parties to adduce the evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court has further erred in ordering the payment of court fee by considering the present market value. However, it would have been from the date of presentation of the plaint. In my considered view, the said issue also - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31765 WP No. 2561 of 2020 requires to be gone into while adjudicating the issue on court fee. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 11.11.2019 passed in O.S.No.9863/2014 by the VII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii) The Trial Court shall frame the issue on Court Fee and record its finding on the said issue along with other issues while deciding the suit. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20