1. Defendant challenges order on preliminary issues in suit seeking declaration of easementary right and mandatory injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 564
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
Sri Y.Rajanna S/o Late Yellappa - Appellant
Vs.
Sri Y.Narayanaswamy S/o Late Yellappa - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32728 Of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 20-07-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Shravan S Lokre, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Vijaya Shekara Gowda V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Shravan S Lokre, Advocate
A suit for declaration of an easementary right and mandatory injunction is valued under Sections 24(d) and 26(e) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, not Section 24(a), as easementary rights are incorporeal and do not involve proprietary ownership of the servient heritage.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Sections 24(a), 24(d), and 26(e) - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 4 - Declaration of easementary right - Valuation for Court fee - An easement is a limited right of user over another's property for the beneficial enjoyment of the dominant heritage and does not constitute ownership of the servient heritage (Para 9) - Distinction between proprietary rights and easementary rights is critical for valuation; while proprietary rights attract valuation based on market value under Section 24(a), an easementary right is an incorporeal right and is incapable of valuation based on the market value of the servient heritage (Para 9) - Where the plaintiff does not seek ownership or recovery of possession, but only recognition of a right of ingress and egress, the suit is rightly valued under Sections 24(d) and 26(e) of the Act (Paras 8, 10) - A mandatory injunction seeking removal of obstruction to facilitate an easementary right does not convert the suit into one attracting Section 24(a) if it does not result in delivery of possession or declaration of ownership. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed seeking a declaration that a specific property is intended for utility purposes and for ingress and egress, along with a mandatory injunction to remove constructions obstructing the pathway and a permanent injunction. The trial court held the suit maintainable and the court fee proper under Sections 24(d), 26(a), and 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The defendant challenged this order, arguing that as the property had a significant market value, the court fee should have been paid based on that market value under Section 24(a) of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The trial court rightly appreciated that the plaintiff sought only the recognition of a right of ingress and egress and not a declaration of ownership or possession. The valuation adopted under Section 24(d) for declaratory relief and Section 26(e) for the mandatory injunction was in accordance with the statutory scheme.
Issues: Whether a suit seeking a declaration of an easementary right of ingress and egress, coupled with a mandatory injunction for removal of the obstruction, is liable to be valued under Section 24(a) (based on market value) or under Sections 24(d) and 26(e) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act?
Ratio Decidendi: An easement is an incorporeal right annexed to the enjoyment of another property and does not confer title or possession over the servient heritage. Since the plaintiff did not claim proprietary interest or possession, the valuation cannot be based on the market value of the servient property. Section 24(a) of the Act applies to declarations of proprietary rights, whereas the present relief is limited to the right of user.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendant argues suit should be valued under Section 24(a) on market value; plaintiff asserts proper valuation under Sections 24(d) and 26(e). (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court held that a suit for easementary right is an incorporeal right, not proprietary, and valued under Sections 24(d) and 26(e). (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Court fees for a suit seeking declaration of an easementary right are determined under Sections 24(d) and 26(e), not Section 24(a). (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; trial court order upholding proper court fee and jurisdiction affirmed. (Para 11 )
6. Should a suit for declaration of an easementary right be valued under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act?
No. An easement is an incorporeal right, not a proprietary right, so valuation under Section 24(a) for declaration of title does not apply. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. Under which provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act should a suit for easementary right and mandatory injunction be valued?
Such a suit is properly valued under Section 24(d) for the declaratory relief and Section 26(e) for the mandatory injunction. (Para 8 , 10 )
8. Is the market value of the servient property relevant for determining court fees in an easement suit?
No. An easement right is incapable of valuation based on the market value of the servient heritage as the plaintiff does not acquire title or possession. (Para 9 )
9. Does the defence raised by the defendant affect the determination of court fees in a civil suit?
No. The question of court fees must be determined solely with reference to the averments and reliefs in the plaint, not the defence. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
Aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2025 in O.S. No. 460/2025, passed on preliminary issues Nos.3 to 5 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore Rural District, the defendant is before this Court.
2. The respondent herein has filed a suit seeking a Judgment and Decree of Declaration declaring that the Schedule B property is meant for utility purposes and for the ingress and egress of the plaintiff and the users. The second relief is a grant of a Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to remove the constructions put up in the Schedule ‘B’ property, as shown in the photographs produced with the plaint and also the sketch at their costs and expenses, in case the defendants fail to permit the plaintiff to demolish and remove the illegal constructions made by the defendants in the Schedule B property at the defendants' cost and expense exclusively. Thirdly, grant an order of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents, servants, legal heirs, or any person claiming under or through the defendants from interfering with the Schedule B property and from putting up any construction, either pucca or tentative nature, that may obstruct the ingress or egress of the plaintiff or the users in any way or any manner. Basing on the rival pleadings of the parties, 9 issues were framed for consideration. Among them, Issue Nos. 3 to 5 were treated as preliminary issues, which read thus:
“Issue No. 3 to 5:
3. Whether the Court fee paid and valuation made by the plaintiff is proper?
4. Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable?”
3. The trial Court held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable before the Court, that the plaintiff has properly valued the suit and paid the appropriate Court fee, and that the Court has the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. While passing the order, the trial Court observed that, in the present suit, the plaintiff is not seeking any declaration of title over the Schedule ‘B’ property, which is alleged to be a road. Instead, he is claiming only an easementary right-of-way over the said property, based on a Gift Deed allegedly executed by his father.
4. It is the case of the defendants that the Schedule B property has a market value of Rs.1,92,45,000/-, and therefore the plaintiff ought to have paid Court fees based on this market value, in accordance with Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). The Court observed that in a suit concerning easementary rights, the valuation for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction must be based on the relief claimed, rather than on the market value of the property over which the easement is claimed. It is also observed that, since the relief sought is limited to the declaration of an easementary right of way to access his land and not a declaration of ownership or title, the Court fee has been rightly computed under Sections 24(d), 26(a), and 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The trial Court observed that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is legally sound, and the objection raised by the defendants regarding pecuniary jurisdiction, based on market value, is misplaced and unsustainable in light of the legal principle.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the trial Court has failed to examine the documents produced by the plaintiff. When the defendant/petitioners are the absolute owners of over 16 guntas of converted land, the suit property, admittedly, is full of residential buildings, service station, bakery, hotel building, and labour house, and there is no symptom of any internal road available at any point of time to any person either on its western side, southern side, or from any direction. The trial Court apparently erred in passing the order on preliminary issues 3 to 5, holding that the plaintiff's s
