- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 33926 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SRINIVASULU S/O NAGARAJASETTY, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR ALANKAR TALKIES, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK. (BY ADVOCATE PRATHYUSHA M SHANUBOG) …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARUNA BINDAGI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. M.S NAGESH S/O. K.M SATHYANARAYANASETTY, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A VINAYAKA NAGAR, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TALUK. …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-(A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/08/2025 PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN OS 95/2015 SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF ON THE FILE OF PRL SR, CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MADUGIRI ITINERATE PAVAGADA. ON NEW VALUATION SLIP ON BEING BOUND BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN W.P. NO. 52600/2019, OUGHT RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF VALUED THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND PAID FULL COURT FEE UNDER SECTION 24(A) OF THE KCF AND SVA.(B) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF TO FILE A PROPER VALUATION SLIP VALUING THE ENTIRE SUIT PROPERTY INCLUDING THE BUILDING, AND PAY FULL COURT FEE AS PER SECTION 24(A) OF THE KCF AND SVA AND ETC. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the defendant in O.S. No.95/2015 is directed against the impugned order passed on the valuation slip filed by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada, whereby the Trial Court accepted the valuation slip of the respondent/plaintiff by holding as under: “ORDER ON VALUATION SLIP The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of encroached portion of property by the defendant and for mandatory injunction directing him to demolish and remove the alleged illegal construction of chajja, pillars, windows, parapet walls and commercial building structures and consequently for perpetual injunction. 2. On perusal of valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit reveals that, he has calculated the suit U/s 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,1958 at a sum of Rs.6,40,000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.21,675/-. In response to the summons, the defendant appeared before the court and represented - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 through his counsel and filed written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties issues were also framed. In the written statement, the defendant did not rise his objection about the valuation of suit and also Court fee paid by the plaintiff. When the case was posted for further examination- in-chief of PW1, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) of CPC-IA No.1 and prayed for rejection of plaint on the ground that, sufficient court fee was not paid. The plaintiff filed his objection to the application and after having heard the parties, said application came to be rejected vide order dated 11.09.2017. However, the plaintiff was directed to file a fresh valuation slip and pay court fee on the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit. 3. As per the directions of this Court, the plaintiff paid deficit court fee and filed a fresh valuation slip on 02.02.2018. The defendant had filed objections to the fresh valuation slip and also produced a market value certificate dated 28.07.2017 received from the office of the Sub- Registrar, Pavagada. On the basis of said certificate, the fresh valuation slip dated 02.02.2018 filed by the plaintiff came to be rejected vide order dated 28.03.2019. Further, the plaintiff was directed to file a fresh valuation slip by valuing the suit property on the market value as on the date of the institution of the suit and to deposit the deficit court fee. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 4. It is pertinent to note, subsequent to passing of aforesaid order dated 28-03-2009, the defendant filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC,-IA No.V for appointment of Court Commissioner to determine the correct market value of the suit schedule property for determining the Court fee payable by the plaintiff. To resist the application, the plaintiff filed objection and after having heard the parties, the application came to be allowed vide order dated 06.11.2019. Consequently, the Sub-registrar of Pavagada taluk was appointed as court commissioner for determination of market value of the suit property as on the date of suit. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 28-03-2019 passed by this Court rejecting the valuation slip filed by the plaintiff and directing him to file a fresh valuation slip by valuing the suit property at market value as on the date of the institution of the suit and to deposit the deficit Court fee and also order dated 06.11.2019 allowing application filed by the defendant under order 26 rule 9 of CPC-IA No.V and appointment the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada taluk as Court Commissioner to determine the market value of the suit property, the plaintiff filed WP No.52600/2019 (GM-CPC) before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the said writ petition filed by the plaintiff herein. Consequently, the aforesaid order dated 28-03-2019 passed by this court rejecting the valuation slip filed by the plaintiff and directing him to file afresh valuation slip and to deposit the deficit - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 Court fee and also order dated 06.11.2019 allowing application filed by the defendant for the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada Taluk as Court Commissioner to determine the market value of the suit property are set aside. Accordingly, IA No.V came to be rejected and valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff on 02-02-2018 is accepted, subject however to the condition that, he shall pay the court fee payable under section 24(a) if the KCF and SV act and not under Section 24(b) of the Act. 6. In compliance of the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the plaintiff has filed fresh valuation slip dated 28-06-2024 valuing the property under section 24(a) of the court fee and suit valuation act. It is recited in the valuation slip that, the suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction and for delivery of vacant possession of encroached portion by the defendant. The suit property is a shop and vacant site bearing Khatha No.2440/1493/350/1,337/1,352/3 measuring East x West-26 feet, North x South - 56 feet. Earlier for the purpose of court fee, the suit property was valued for Rs.6,40,000-00, court fee paid on the market value i.e., 6,40,000 / 2=3,20,000/-. Hence, the suit valued for jurisdiction of Rs.6,40,000/- and court fee of Rs.21,675/- is paid. 7. It is also recited that, subsequently, fresh valuation slip was filed on 02-02-2018 valuing the property for Rs.7,20,000/- as per the orders of this court and hence, court fee of Rs.47,055/- is paid on the plaint. Subsequently, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 once again fresh valuation slip was filed on 07-06-2019 as per the orders of the Hon’ble court and valued as per Sub- registrar, valuation of property 26 x 56 = 135 square meter, market value for commercial shop is valued as : 135 x 10,000-00 = 1350,000-00, half of the court fee payable on Rs.13,000/2 = 6,75,000-00. Court fee payable on Rs.6,75,000-00 i.e, 43,875-00 less already paid court fee of Rs.21,000/- which comes to Rs.22,675/-. 8. It is recited that, again as per the orders passed by the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in W.P No.52600/2019 dated 27-03-2024, plaintiff filed fresh valuation slip valuing the property under section 24(a) of the court fee and suits valuation act. Then fresh valuation slip filed and court fee paid as per the valuation slip dated 02-02- 2018 accepted by the Honb’le High Court. Since the suit is for Declaration and permanent injunction is the main relief and mandatory injunction and possession is ancillary relief to the main relief. As contemplated under section 6(2) of the court fee and suits valuation act, in a multifarious suit court fee is payable on the main relief. Hence, court fee paid as per the valuation slip dated 02-02-2018 hold good. 9. The defendant filed objection to the said valuation slip dated 28-06-2024 and contended that, the suit is for declaration of title mandatory injunction and also for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is a commercial building measuring about 26 feet and 56 feet in the prime place of Pavagada town. There is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 court fee payable by the plaintiff on the suit property. The dispute reached Honb’le High court of Karnataka in W.P No.52600/2019 and as per the order dated 27-03-2024, the plaintiff was directed to pay the court fee on the present market value of the suit property as per section 24(a) of KCF and SV Act. 10. It is contended that, the said provision is very clear that, the plaintiff had to pay the court fee to complete market value and not on half of the market value. However, the plaintiff had chosen to assess the market value of the suit property based on the registered sale deed dated 15-12- 2006 wherein the suit schedule site property was sold for Rs.6,75,000/- to the plaintiff from its real owner. That is not the actual market value of the suit property. After purchase from the owner by the plaintiff, he had demolished old two rooms existing and taken valid permission from the concerned municipality of Pavagada and reconstructed a commercial shopping complex and running a TVS two wheeler vehicles show room in the said building which reflected in the color photos. 11. It is contended that, he had produced the certificate of the chartered engineer of various Banks as the correct valuation of the suit schedule commercial building property. He has shown the market value of the suit property will be more than one crore three lakh as on the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff is liable to pay the court fee on the said amount shown by the engineer and not on the amount - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 shown in the registered sale deed dated 15-12-2006 which will not be even 1/100th of the actual market value of the suit property. The plaintiff intentionally avoiding payment of court fee for all these days. On the said grounds, the defendant prayed for rejection of valuation slip. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant and perused the materials available on record. 13. The suit is for declaration that, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of encroached portion of property by the defendant and for mandatory injunction directing him to demolish and remove the alleged illegal construction of chajja, pillars, windows, parapet walls and commercial building structures and consequently for perpetual injunction. As stated above, the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.52600/2019(GM-CPC) passed an order setting aside the aforesaid orders dated 28-03-2019 passed by this court rejecting the valuation slip filed by the plaintiff and directing him to file a fresh valuation slip and to deposit the deficit Court fee and also order dated 06.11.2019 allowing application filed by the defendant for appointment of the Sub- Registrar, Pavagada Taluk as Court Commissioner to determine the market value of the suit property. Accordingly, IA No.V came to be rejected and valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff on 02-02-2018 has been accepted, subject however to the condition that, he shall pay the court fee - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 payable under section 24(a) of the KCF and SV act and not under Section 24(b) of the Act. 14. In compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, the plaintiff has filed fresh valuation slip dated 28-06-2024 valuing the property under section 24(a) of the court fee and suit valuation act. It is an admitted fact that, valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff on 02-02-2018 has been accepted by the Hon'ble High court, subject to payment of court fee under section 24(a) of the KCF and SV act. In the said WP No. 52600/2019 (GM-CPC), the Hon'ble High court observed that, "when a suit is instituted in a civil court, to determine the question whether the suit is properly valued and proper Court fee is paid, the plaint shall be examined at two stages. At the first stage, when the suit is instituted and thereafter, when the defendant enters appearance and raises an issue regarding the Court fee payable. In the case on hand, the Trial court did raise objection regarding the sufficiency of court fee paid on the plaint. The defendant did not raise any objection in his written statement regarding the sufficiency of court fee paid thereon. Therefore, the Trial Court did not have an occasion to consider whether the Court fee paid on the plaint was correct or not. The Trial Court misdirected itself in allowing the defendant to place on record a certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Pavagada indicating the market value of the suit property so as to hold that the valuation slip filed by the plaintiff on 02.02.2018 was incorrect. The Trial Court also misdirected itself in allowing the application (I.A. No.5) filed by the defendant and in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 appointing Sub-Registrar of Pavagada Taluk as Court Commissioner to determine the market value of the suit property for the purpose of collection of Court fee. It is indeed a typical case where the Trial Court lost track of the suit but went about wasting time to determine the proper Court fee payable, though the defendant did not raise any contention regarding the sufficiency of the Court fee. The impugned orders therefore suffer from perversity and deserve to be interfered with". 15. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High court, it is very much clear that, IA No.V came to be rejected and valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff on 02-02- 2018 has been accepted, subject to the condition that, he shall pay the court fee payable Under section 24(a) of the KCF and SV act and not under Section 24(b) of the Act. As per the orders passed by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No.52600/2019 dated 27-03-2024, plaintiff filed fresh. valuation slip valuing the property under section 24(a) of the court fee and suits valuation act. The fresh valuation slip filed and court fee which was paid as per the valuation slip dated 02-02-2018 has already been accepted by the Hon'ble High court. 16. As per the valuation slip dated 02-02-2018 the plaintiff valued the property for Rs.7,20,000/- and had paid court fee of Rs.47,055/-. Subsequently, once again fresh valuation slip was filed on 07-06-2019 as per the orders of the Hon'ble court and valued as per Sub-registrar, valuation - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 of property 26 x 56= 135 Square meter, market value for commercial shop is valued as: 135 x 10,000-00-1350,000- 00, half of the court fee payable on Rs.13,000/2 = 6,75,000- 00. Court fee payable on Rs.6,75,000-00 i.e., 43,875-00 less already paid court fee of Rs.21,000/- which comes to Rs.22,675/-. 17. The suit is for Declaration and permanent injunction is the main relief and mandatory injunction and possession is ancillary to the main relief. As contemplated under section 6(2) of the court fee and suits valuation act, in a multifarious suit court fee is payable on the main relief. Hence, court fee paid as per valuation slip dated 02-02-2018 holds good and in compliance of the directions of Hon'ble High court of the Karnataka, the plaintiff has filed fresh valuation slip dated 28-06-2024 valuing the property under section 24(a) of the court fee and suit valuation act. The valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff dated 28-06-2024 is correct and the plaintiff has paid proper court fee as per Section 24(a) of the Act of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Therefore, the objection filed by the defendant to the valuation slip is not sustainable. The fresh valuation slip dated 28-06-2024 filed valuing the property under section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation and in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Court and deserves to be accepted. In view of the foregoing reason, I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 ORDER The fresh valuation slip dated 28-06-2024 filed by the plaintiff valuing the suit under section 24(a) of the court fees and suits valuation act is hereby accepted. The present suit is of year 2015 and also one of the top 25 oldest cases. Therefore, the parties shall proceed with the matter on day to day basis without seeking unnecessary adjournments.” 2. Upon reconsideration, revaluation and re-appreciation of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is based on correct and proper appreciation of the material on record and the same cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse nor as having resulted in miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the case of (i) Radhey Shyam and Another Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423 (ii) K.P. Natarajan and Another Vs. Muthalammal & Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 3443 and (iii) Mohamed Ali Vs. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7516 WP No. 33926 of 2025 Jaya & Ors. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 477. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11