- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.12326/2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: DR. T. MANJUNATH SON OF LATE THIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.784/A, MALLIGE CROSS ROOPANAGAR, DEEPA HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, M.K. HALLI POST, MYSURU-570 005. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. GIRIDHAR, ADV., [ABSENT]) AND: SMT. M.K. CHAITRA WIFE OF M.K. SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.404 SRUSTI SAMPADA, IST MAIN ROAD 17TH CROSS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGARA BENGALURU-560098. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY, ADV., FOR SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.C. ADV.,) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN O.S.NO.869/2017 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE CULMINATING IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSORE IN O.S.NO.869/2017 DATED 06.11.2020 AS AT ANNEXURE-G, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.7 & ETC. Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 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 06.11.2020 passed in OS.No.869/2017 by the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge at JMFC, Mysore (for short ‘the trial Court’). 2. There is no representation for the petitioner today. Even on 06.05.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner and to provide one more opportunity, the matter was listed today. 3. Heard Sri.Nanjunda Swamy, learned counsel for Sri.Raghavendra S.C., learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit OS.No.869/2017 for the following reliefs: “a) To declare that, the Registered Sale Agreement dated 05.09.2015 pertaining to the Schedule Properties which was registered as document No.MYW-1-05132-2015-16 in C.D. No. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 MYWD-53 of Book No.1 before the Sub-Registrar, Mysuru-West, Mysuru is null and void. b) For consequential relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendants No.2 to 4 to cancel the Registered Sale Agreement dated 05.09.2015 and Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the Schedule Properties, and c) such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 5. In the said suit, the plaintiff valued the suit under Section 38 r/w Section 26(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). The plaintiff has valued the suit and arrived at a valuation of Rs.50,00,000/- and the Court fee was paid on the said amount. The defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint averments and subsequently filed an application in IA.No.7 under Section 11(2) of the Act, seeking the Court to decide the sufficiency of the Court fee paid by the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff had incorrectly valued the suit on the advance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-, whereas the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit on the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,62,00,000/- as shown in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 agreement of sale. The plaintiff opposed the application by filing objections, contending that the application itself was not maintainable. The trial Court, considering the rival submissions has allowed the application by directing the plaintiff to value the suit properly and pay the Court fee as per law. 6. A perusal of the plaint averments makes it clear that the plaintiff is seeking declaration that the registered sale agreement dated 05.09.2015, pertaining to the suit schedule properties is null and void and another consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant Nos.2 to 4 to cancel the said registered agreement of sale dated 05.09.2015 and encumbrance certificate pertaining to the scheduled properties. The relief of declaration that the registered sale agreement dated 05.09.2015 is null and void is sought by a party to the agreement itself. Therefore, in my considered view, the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee under Section 38(1) of the Act on the market value of the suit properties. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 7. My view gains support from the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Damegunta Rajeshwaramma and Another v. Smt.Jayalakshmamma and Others1. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 which reads as follows: “7.Section 38 of the Act reads as under: “38. Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc.- (1) In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be.- if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed: if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property. (2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff’s share in 1 WP.No.11913/2008 disposed on 06.04.2010 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less.” In case of cancellation of the document, the court fee is required to be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed. 8.In similar circumstances, the Division Bench while interpreting Section 4(iv) of the Mysore Court Fees act, 1900 wherein also, in case of cancellation of document, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or the other document executed, the value of the property was interpreted to mean the actual value of the property, not the market value under the Act, In this regard, the Division Bench has observed as under: “It therefore follows that what is relevant for the purpose of S.4(iv) A is not the value of the property specified in the document but its real and actual value when the suit is brought. It is on the value that the Court fee has to be paid if the suit is for the cancellation of a document recording a transaction involving such property.” Learned Judges of the Division Bench though passed two separate orders, but they were unanimous in the conclusion. 9.Even reading of the provisions of Section 38 of the Act indicates that, value of the property referred to therein is nothing but actual value of the property. In case the legislation is intended to treat the value of the document, it - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32605 W.P. No.12326/2021 could have specifically mentioned the same. Very fact that the property is mentioned, it is for the court to determine the value of the property and not the value of the consideration mentioned in the document. This is also fortified by the decision of this Court reported in 1974(2) SHORT NOTE 305 wherein this Court has observed that, the value of the property in Section 38(1) must be understood as the market value of the property and not the amount of consideration specified in the deed sought to be cancelled. Thus in a suit for cancellation of the document, the plaintiff is required to value the suit on the basis of the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the transaction.” 8. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by this Court and the nature of reliefs sought in the plaint, I am of the considered view that the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the application and there is no merit in the present case. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25