- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 16896 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHATHI BELNICK AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, WIFE OF MR. DANIEL SAUL BELNICK, RESIDENT OF DJAPA, OLD AUROVILLE ROAD, BOMMAYAR, PALAYAM P.O. 605104, AUROVILLE TAMIL NADU …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VYJAYANTHI MALA @ JAYA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, D/O LATE N G ETHIRAJULU NAIDU, RESIDING AT SITE NO.10, DOOR NO.11, SUSHEELA NILAYAM, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU, KALYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043. 2. SRI. DEENDAYAL, MAJOR IN AGE, SON OF LATE M. CHANGALAVARAYA NAIDU 3. SHRI. D. KRISHNA MORTHI ALIAS KRISHNAMURTHY MAJOR IN AGE SON OF SHRI. DEENADAYALAN Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 4. SHRI. MATHAVAN ALIAS MADAVAN MAJOR IN AGE SON OF SHRI. DEENADAYALAN 5. SHRI. PRADEEP KUMAR MAJOR IN AGE SON OF SHRI DEENADAYALAN 6. SHRI ANURAJSHEKARAN, MAJOR IN AGE SON OF SHRI. DEENADAYALAN RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 6 ARE RESIDENTS OF PODANUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641023. 7. SMT. ROSY MAJOR IN AGE WIDOW OF LATE E. GOPINATH, 8. SMT. SOUBHAGYA, MAJOR IN AGE, DAUGHTER OF LATE. E. GOPINATH 9. SMT. SHANTHA, MAJOR IN AGE, DAUGHTER OF LATE E. GOPINATH RESPONDENT NOS. 7, 8 & 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF NAGAYANA PALYA, MARUTHISEVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 033. 10. SHRI. E. KANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE. N G ETHIRAJU NAIDU, RESIDING AT NO.14, 5TH CROSS, TRINITY ENCLAVE, BANJARA LAYOUT, ARCH HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 11. SHRI. E. SRIHARI, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SON OF LATE. N G ETHIRAJU NAIDU, RESIDING AT NO.124, 1ST CROSS, DODDA KEMPAIAH LAYOUT, AGARA MAIN ROAD, KELKERE, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 043. 12. SMT ARUNA MAJOR IN AGE AGED ABOUT YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE. N G VENKATESH, RESIDING AT UNIT 3401, 60 KAVANAGH STREET, SOUTHBANK, MELBOURNE-3006, VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA 13. SHRI. V RUSHINATH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS SON OF LATE N G VENKATESH RESIDING AT NO.603A, 3RD STREET, IDUKKU PILLAYAR, KOIL NAGAR, VENGIKKAL, TIRUVANNAMALAI, TAMIL NADU – 606 604. 14. SMT. TARASREE, MAJOR IN AGE WIDOW OF LATE G.V AMARNATH 15. KUMARI GAUTHAMI AMARNATH AGED ABOUT YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE G.V AMARNATH 16. SHRI. BHAVANESH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS SON OF LATE G.V. AMARNATH 17. SHRI. BADRRISH ALIAS BADRI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, SON OF LATE G.V. AMARNATH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 RESPONDENT NOS. 14, 15, 16 & 17 ARE RESIDING AT NO.14/5, MEENAKSHI STREET, PARAMBUR CHENNAI TAMIL NADU – 600 011. 18. SHRI. V SHREENATH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SON OF LATE. N G VENKATESH, RESIDING AT NO.574, 5TH MAIN ROAD, TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD 1, ARCOT, VELLOR, TAMIL NADU-632503 19. SMT. KANAKAVALLI, MAJOR IN AGED, WIDOW OF LATE N.G. RAHGUPATHY, RESIDING AT NO.434/1 KGN COMPOUND, 3RD B CROSS KALKERE, BENGALURU-560043. 20. SHRI RAJA MAJOR IN AGE SON OF LATE N G RAGHUPATHY, RESIDING AT 341/C, 3RD CROSS, NRI LAYOUT, KALKERE, BENGALURU-560043. 21. SMT. NETHRAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WIDOW OF LATE. R RAMESH BABU, 22. SHRI. RAGHUNANDH R, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS SON OF LATE. R RAMESH BABU, 23. SHRI. DAYANANDH R, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS SON OF LATE. R RAMESH BABU 24. SHRI R GIRIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, SON OF LATE. N G RAGHUPATHY, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 RESPONDENT NOS. 21, 22, 23 & 24 ARE RESIDING AT NO.95, 1ST CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, CHANNASANDRA HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560048. 25. SHRI. RAGHUPATHY PREM KUMAR @ R PREM KUMAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SON OF LATE. N G RAGHUPATHY, RESIDING AT NO.129, 3RD CROSS, NETHRAVATHI LAYOUT, HEMAVATHI ROAD, CHANNASANDRA, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 048. 26. SHRI. YASODHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SON OF SHRI V MURALIDHAR REDDY, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.104, DSR ELITE, BEHIND HP SOFTWARE OFFICE, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU-560048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RUPALI K. TRIVEDI, FOR SRI. PRADEEP C. YADAV, ADVOCATES FOR R26 V/O DATED 25/08/2022 NOTICE TO R1 TO R25 ARE DISPENSED WITH) - - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.27.7.2022 IN O.S.NO.845/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL SR CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU INSOFAR AS ORDER OF DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE DEFICIT COURT AS PER ANNEXURE-D ORDER DTD.27.7.2022. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 27.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.845/2021 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Trial Court’). 2. Heard Sri.Ajit Kalyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Rupali K.Trivedi, learned counsel for Sri.Pradeep C.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.26. 3. The petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.845/2021 seeking the relief of partition, for allotment of 1/15th share to the plaintiff, to declare that the sale deeds executed by the defendant Nos.1, 10, 11, 13, 18 to 25 and their respective children in favour of defendant No.26, is not binding and for other reliefs. In the said suit, the defendant No.26, claiming to be the purchaser of the suit schedule properties under a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 registered sale deed dated 30.07.2020, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) contending that the plaintiff is required to pay the Court fee in accordance with Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments, allowed the said application filed by the defendant No.26 and directed the plaintiff to pay the sufficient Court fee within one month. It is required to be noticed that the defendant No.26 is contending that the suit schedule properties are purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2020 and hence, the plaintiff is not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and is liable to pay the Court fee. The Trial Court accepted the said contention. 4. In my considered view, the Trial Court, instead of entertaining the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC, would have framed the issue with regard to the Court fee and dealt with the said issue along with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 other issues and thereafter, if the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee, a direction could be issued to the plaintiff to make good the Court fee. Instead of doing that, the Trial Court allowed the application of the defendant No.26 filed under Order VII and Rule 11(b) of the CPC which was uncalled for. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of VENKATESH R DESAI Vs. SMT.PUSHPA HOSMANI AND OTHERS1 at paragraph 35 held as under: “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 2 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.” 1 ILR 2018 KAR 5095 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 5. In view of the enunciation of law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, I am of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed by directing the Trial Court to frame the issue with regard to the Court fee and record its finding on the said issue along with the other issues. 6. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.845/2021 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.VII filed by the defendant No.26 under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the CPC, is rejected. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33054 WP No. 16896 of 2022 (iii) The Trial Court shall frame the issue on the Court fee and try the said issue along with other issues. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30