- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.5936/2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJA .R S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAM REDDY AGED 56 YEARS R/AT NO.1, A R NILAYA 1ST MAIN, 2ND BLOCK AKSHAY NAGAR RAMAMURTHYNAGAR BENGALURU 560016. …PETITIONER (BY MS. CAROL D’SOUZA, ADV., FOR MR. PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADV.,) AND: 1. SRI. R. NAGARAJ S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMREDDY AGED 53 YEARS R/AT NO.177, RADHA NILAYA 2ND BLOCK, AKSHAY NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560016. 2. SRI. R. RAJASHEKAR S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMREDDY AGED 51 YEARS R/AT NO 1/1, SHREE NIVASA 1ST MAIN, 2ND BLOCK AKSHAY NAGAR R Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 RAMARMUTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560016. 3. SRI. RAJA BABU R S/O LATE RAMANNA @ RAMREDDY AGED 49 YEARS R/AT NO.3, VIBHAV HOMES 17TH CROSS, 2ND BLOCK AKSHAY NAGAR RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU 560016. 4. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. [AMENDED V.C.O. DTD:17.03.2022] …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. M. MADHUSUDHAN, ADV., FOR MR. VISWANATH SETTY, ADV., FOR R1 MR. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R4 R2, R3 ARE SERVED ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.02.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25826/2021 ON THE FILE OF XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-K & 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:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.25826/2021 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore (for short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. Miss.Carol D’souza, learned counsel for Sri.Prasanna Kumar P., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the suit in O.S.No.25826/2021 seeking the declaration that document titled “cancellation of gift deed” dated 29.10.2018 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Banasawadi, Bengaluru, executed between the defendant No.1 and the deceased father of the plaintiff and the defendants as null and void, illegal and not binding, etc. and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is submitted that originally the property belonged to the mother of the plaintiff and she gifted the property in favour of the defendant No.1, one of the sons, and thereafter, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 defendant No.1 gifted the said property in favour of the father of the plaintiff and defendants, Sri.Ramanna, vide gift deed dated 12.12.2017 and later the said Ramanna cancelled the gift deed dated 12.12.2017 by cancellation deed dated 29.10.2018. However, in the meantime, father of the plaintiff, had gifted the property under the registered gift deed dated 09.08.2018 in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit came to be filed seeking declaration that the cancellation of the gift deed under the instrument dated 29.10.2018 is null and void. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had valued the suit under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, (for short, ‘the Act’) and paid the Court fee. However, the trial Court under the impugned order directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee under Section 38 of the Act. It is also submitted that even if the Court fee is valued under Section 38 of the Act, the Court fee payable would be the same as what is paid. It is contended that under the gift deed the value of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 property is not mentioned, hence paying the Court fee on the market value of the property covered under the gift deed would not arise and the said issue is no more res integra, it is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jaware Gowda and Anr. v. Basavaraju N.J. and Ors.1. Hence, she seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.M.Madhusudhan, learned counsel for Sri.Viswanath Setty, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioner-plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee on the market value of the property referred in the gift deed and the trial Court has rightly come to conclusion that the plaint is liable to be valued under Section 38 of the Act. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1 AIR 2016 KARNATAKA 58 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 respondent No.1, the learned AGA for respondent No.4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. The point that arises for consideration in this petition is: “Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee by valuing the suit under Section 24(d) or Section 38 of the Act?” 6. The relevant facts necessary to answer the aforesaid point are as under: a) The petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.25826/2021 seeking prayer to declare that the document titled as “cancellation of gift deed” dated 29.10.2018 which is registered as document No.BNS-1-12290/18-19, Book-1, stored in CD NO.BNSD671, registered in the office of Sub- Registrar, Banasawadi, Bengaluru, executed between the defendant No.1 and deceased father of the plaintiff and defendants is null and void ab initio and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 therefore illegal and not binding on the plaintiff and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit schedule property or creating any charge or creating encumbrance over the suit schedule property. b) The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 24(d) of Schedule II of the Act and valued the suit at Rs.1,000/- and paid the Court fee accordingly. The trial Court vide order dated 22.02.2022 held that the office has raised objections that there is a deficit of Court fee since the prayer is for cancellation of the gift deed and further came to the conclusion that since the prayer sought by the plaintiff is for cancellation of the registered instrument, the Court fee must be paid accordingly. It was also held that the valuation is to be made as per the amount of the value of the property for which the document was executed and it was further held that the instrument - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 executed in respect of the immovable house property measuring 2890 square feet the valuation of Rs.1000/- cannot be accepted at all and the actual valuation must be higher than the present valuation. Hence, the office objection was upheld, the plaintiff was directed to file a fresh valuation slip and pay the Court fee accordingly. The said order is under challenge. c) It would be useful to extract Section 24 and 38 of the Act for easy reference: “24. Suits for Declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25- (a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand], whichever is higher; (b) where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees one thousand], whichever is higher; [(c)*****]; (d) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees one thousand] whichever is higher. 38. 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 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.” d) It is required to be noticed that the prayer in the plaint indicates that the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration that the document titled as "Cancellation of Gift Deed” dated 29.10.2018 executed between defendant No.1 and deceased father of plaintiff and defendants is null and void ab - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 initio and therefore illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Though, the prayer is drafted as a relief for declaration, it is necessary to ascertain whether the relief actually amounts to declaration or cancellation of an instrument i.e. the Cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 29.10.2018? e) In order to answer the aforesaid question, it would be useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Ranbir Singh & Ors2 wherein at paragraph No.6, it was held as under: “6. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to ‘A’ and ‘B’ -- two brothers. ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favour of ‘C’. Subsequently ‘A’ wants to avoid the sale. ‘A’ has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if ‘B’, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by ‘A’ is 2 Civil Appeals No.2811-2813/2010 dtd 29.03.2010 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 invalid/void and nonest/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non- binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If ‘A’, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If ‘B’, who is a non- executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if ‘B’, a nonexecutant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad- valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.” f) It would also be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Venkatesh S v the State of Karnataka3, wherein at paragraph 15, it was held as under: 3 W.P.No.10782/2018 dtd 29.03.2018 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 “15. It is settled position of law that where a person who is not a party to the instrument seeks for a declaratory relief to the effect that the said instrument is not binding on the plaintiff, the valuation under Section 24(d) of the Act can be resorted to, whereas a party to a document, who seeks for relief regarding the said document would be required to value the plaint in terms of Section 38 of the Act, which provides for cancellation of instruments. It appears that where a person is a party to an instrument, any relief howsoever crafted would amount to a relief relating to cancellation of the said instrument and hence, appropriate valuation under Section 38 of the Act is required to be made. In the present case, there is no reason to exempt valuation under Section 38 of the Act. The mere allegations of fraud which, even if accepted, relates to partial failure of consideration and does not permit the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 24(d) of the Act thereby getting over the valuation under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, which the plaintiff considers as onerous.” g) The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court makes it clear that the distinction between the relief of declaration and the relief of cancellation of an instrument has to be drawn by considering whether the party seeking such a relief is a party to the instrument. If the party seeking the relief of declaration that an instrument is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 null and void and is not binding on the plaintiff and the said party is a party to the instrument, then despite the wordings of the relief, the same shall amount to the relief of cancellation of the instrument and the Court fee shall be payable as per Section 38 of the Act. In a case where a party is seeking the relief of declaration stating that the document is null and void and as not binding on the plaintiff and the said party is not a party to the instrument then the Court fee payable shall be as per Section 24(d) of the Act. h) In the instant case, it is to be noticed that declaration for “Cancellation of the Gift Deed” dated 29.10.2018 sought to be declared as null and void is executed between the defendant No.1 and the deceased father of the plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff herein is not a party to the said instrument. Hence, the relief sought in the plaint though it is styled as declaration by a - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 non-party to the instrument, the Court fee payable would be as per Section 24(d) of the Act and not under Section 38 of the Act. i) Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of this Court in the case of Jaware Gowda and Another referred supra, the same would be applicable, if the party seeking the relief of declaration that the Cancellation of the Gift Deed is null and void was a party to the Cancellation of Gift Deed. The question regarding the calculation of the Court fee under Section 38 of the Act in case of Cancellation of the Gift Deed, wherein there is no consideration need not be gone into by this Court in the instant case, as the plaintiff herein is not a party to the Cancellation of the Gift Deed dated 29.10.2018. j) Hence, in view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the petitioner-plaintiff has rightly valued the suit and paid the Court fee as per - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34106 W.P. No.5936/2022 Section 24(d) of the Act and accordingly the point is answered. 7. Thus, the impugned order of the trial Court calls for interference. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 22.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.25826/2021 by the XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo hall, Bangalore, hereby is set aside. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33