- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5213 RFA No. 1379 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1379 OF 2019 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: M/S. RANJITH ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., NO.157/18,ST. PATRICKS COMPLEX, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SMT VIDYAVATHI GUPTA, PRESENT DIRECTOR, SMT ANJANA GUPTA, …APPELLANT (BY SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. MUKUL BHARGAV, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE BHAGWAN DAS BHARGHAVA SMT. OM SHANKAR BHARGAV S/O LATE BHAGWAN DAS BHARGHAVA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2. SMT. MADHURI BHARGAV AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, W/O LATE OM SHANKAR BHARGHAV 3. SRI. MANDEEP BHARGAV, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE OM SHANKAR BHARGHAV 4. SMT. PREETI BHARGHAV, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, D/O LATE OM SHANKAR BHARGHAV Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5213 RFA No. 1379 of 2019 ALL ARE AT NO.79/80, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 058. 5. M/S BHARGHAVA ROTO PACK PVT. LTD., A PRIVATE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 79/80, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANDAN SHREEKANT MALAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.4188/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-45) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, POSSESSION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION, COMPENSATION AND FOR MESNE PROFITS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 in O.S. No.4188/2002 on the file of III Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 17.07.1987 is not binding on the plaintiff and for a consequential relief of injunction. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5213 RFA No. 1379 of 2019 2. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds including the ground of limitation as the suit is filed in the year 2002. The Trial Court on merits as well as on the ground of limitation has held that the sale deed is valid and the suit is time barred. 3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant on instruction from the appellant would submit that the plaintiff does not press his challenge relating to the judgment and decree which has upheld the sale deed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2. However, learned counsel would submit that before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was unnecessarily made to pay a higher Court fee on the market value of the property though the suit is for cancellation of the sale deed. In substance, it is his further submission that before this Court also, the Court fee is paid as paid in the Trial Court, under protest. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5213 RFA No. 1379 of 2019 5. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. As already noticed, the suit is for declaration that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 17.07.1987 and for the consequential relief of possession. The settled position of law is whenever the relief of cancellation is sought, then the Court fee has to be paid on the value of the property as reflected in the said instrument, as enumerated in Section 38 of the Karnataka Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ('Act, 1958). The relief of possession then becomes consequential. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court was required to collect the Court fee on the value of the property shown in the registered sale deed which is sought to be cancelled. In fact, the plaintiff had paid the Court fee on the value of the property reflected in the sale deed. However, later on the objection raised by the defendants, the Court directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee on the market value of the property as on the date of the suit. Accordingly, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5213 RFA No. 1379 of 2019 additional Court fee of ₹1,39,752/- is paid and again while filing an appeal before this Court, the additional Court fee of ₹1,39,752/- is paid under protest. 7. Since the Court is of the view that the Court fee paid is in excess than what is contemplated under Section 38 of the Act, 1958, the Court directs the refund of ₹2,79,504/- to the appellant. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 in O.S. No.4188/2002 on the file of III Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru for the relief of declaration and possession is confirmed. However, the order directing payment of additional Court fee is set aside. (iii) The Registry of this Court and the Registry of the Trial Court shall refund the additional Court fee - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5213 RFA No. 1379 of 2019 collected by the respective Courts to the plaintiff on proper identification. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 .