S. Sujatha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed on Issue No. 6 in OS No. 15799/2000, on the file of learned XXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

3. The facts in brief are that one Chikkakariyappa and his sons said to have effected the panchayath palupatti in respect of the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the partition, katha was transferred in the name of K. Nanjundappa. After the death of K. Nanjundappa, his wife Smt. Gowramma approached the Revenue Authorities to get transferred the revenue records in her favour. The petitioners have filed a suit in OS No. 15207/2001 for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. The late K. Subramani, brother of the K. Nanjundappa challenging the revenue entries made in the name of petitioners filed RA No. 12/1992-93 before the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru. After hearing the matter, the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the appeal and the matter was compromised accordingly. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners herein. The Survey Authorities have got phoded their respective shares and they have conducted the survey of the land in question and prepared sketch and mahazar. It is contended that after conclusion of the survey, it has come to the notice of the petitioners that the respondent has illegally encroached upon a portion of the suit properties and has put up illegal construction thereon. The petitioners filed the suit in OS No. 15799/2000 for relief of declaration and mandatory injunction against the respondent. The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement denying the averments made in the plaint.

It was contended by the defendant/respondent that on the date of filing of the suit, the suit schedule property was not an agricultural land, already the same was converted into non-agricultural land prior to 1988. Thereafter, 35 to 40 persons have purchased the sites in the suit properties who have constructed their residential buildings and residing in the same, therefore, the suit schedule properties lost its agricultural character, accordingly, valuation made by the plaintiffs is incorrect and improper. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed in all 7 issues, out of which Issue No. 6 was treated as preliminary issue, the same reads thus:

"Whether the suit is valued properly and court fee paid is sufficient?"

After considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, the trial Court answered the issue No. 6 in the negative and held that the valuation arrived at and court fee paid by the plaintiffs is incorrect and improper and directed the plaintiffs to submit a fresh valuation slip with necessary court fee under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1957 (here in after referred to as 'the Act') within one month failing which the suit is ordered to be dismissed as the court fee paid is insufficient.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court by way of writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the suit schedule properties are agricultural lands and not been converted into non-agricultural lands, till date. The valuation made by the petitioners for payment of court fee under Section 24(a) is in accordance with law. The respondent has approached the Court and filed the written statement after lapse of 11 years and he has taken a false contention in the written statement alleging that the land bearing Sy. No. 12 which is one of the suit schedule properties is a converted land and 35 to 40 houses are constructed thereon, without any valid basis. Though the suit schedule properties are situated within city municipal limits of Vijinapura, from the year 2011, the same was agricultural land at the time of filing the suit and it was assessed to land revenue as per Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and as such