Aravind Kumar, J:

The order passed in O.S.No.13/2009 dated 15-2-2010 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, Annexure-‘A’ is impugned in this writ petition.

2. The facts in nutshell are as follows:

2.1. A suit in O.S.No.13/2009 was filed by the respondent herein against the defendant-petitioner for recovery of money in a sum of Rs.1,01,000/- with future interest. On service of notice defendant entered appearance and filed written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. A counterclaim was set up by the defendant seeking following relief:

“(a) For a declaration that the defendant is the ‘absolute owner’ of the residential premises bearing Door No.5-38/2 of Moodushedde Panchayat situated in the II Floor of the building ‘Kalyani’ located in Survey No.26/3BP2 of Padushedde village of Mangalore Taluk, within the Registration Sub-district of Mangalore Taluk.”

The defendant valued the suit at Rs.1,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.25/- was paid as per Section 24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Court Fees Act for the sake of brevity).

2.2 In view of the valuation slip filed by the defendant on counter claim, Trail Court adjudicated the same and by its order dated 15-2-2010 held that defendant ought to value the suit under Section 24(b) of the Court Fees Act and held invoking of Section 24 (d) in the valuation slip filed by the defendant is not tenable. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition.

3. I have heard Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and has erroneously rejected the valuation slip on the counterclaim made by the defendant in the written statement. He would submit that only claim made in the written statement is with regard to declaration that defendant is the absolute owner of the residential premises and the said relief squarely falls within clause (d) of Section 24 and he would also submit that reasoning of the Trial Court that relief claimed by defendant falls within the purview of Section 24(b) of the Court Fees Act is erroneous since it is a “declaratory relief’ only that has been sought for and there is “no consequential or further relief’ claimed and as such it would fall within Section 24(d) of the Court Fees Act. In support of his submission he relies upon the following judgments:

(i) 1982 (1) KLJ 335, Basalingappa Ningappa & Others Vs. Dy. Commissioner, Dharwar.

(ii) ILR 2000 Kar.3382, Master K.P.Ponnappa Vs. K.P. Poovaiah

(iii) 1969(2) Mys.L.J.344, Syed Vajeehunnisa begum & Others Vs. The Mysore State board of Wakfs by Secretary & Others.

Accordingly he seeks for quashing of the order dated 5-2-2010 and prays for allowing the writ petition.

5. Per contra Sri.Vijaya Krishna Bhat would support the order of the Trial Court and contends that relief claimed in the counter claim of the defendant is for declaration in respect of immovable property and the words used in Section 24 is “with” or “without” consequential relief and irrespective of whether the defendant claims for declaration of title in respect of immovable property de hors non-claiming of consequential relief, Court fee payable would be as per clause (b) of Section 24 and supports the order of Trial Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. In reply to the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioner he would submit that same are not applicable to the facts of the present case since in those judgments it was held reliefs claimed therein was incapable being valued and it was held that in such circumstances clause (d) of Section 24 of Court Fees Act would applicable which fact according to him is not present in the instant case and accordingly seeks for dismissal