1. Writ petition challenging order on court fee sufficiency in suit for declaration and injunction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
Mrs. Kalpana B., W/o Kalyan Chakravarthy - Appellant
Vs.
M/s Apna Sapna - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10269 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
Decided On : 20-07-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Prakash R.B., Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Prakash R.B., Advocate
Court fee determination must be based on the true substance of the plaint, distinguishing between an executant seeking cancellation and a non-executant seeking a declaration that a document is not binding, while accounting for the nature of possession claimed.
Headnote:(A) State Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Sections 24(b), 24(d), and 7(2)(d) - Determination of court fee - Court fee must be determined on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint and the relief actually claimed - Court must ascertain the true substance of the suit and not merely the phraseology employed in the prayer column; clever drafting cannot alter the real nature of the relief (Para 6).
(B) Suit for declaration - Non-executant of a document - Law draws a clear distinction between a suit instituted by the executant of a document and one instituted by a person who is not a party to its execution - When the executant seeks to avoid his own document, the appropriate relief is cancellation; however, a person who is not a party to the instrument is ordinarily entitled to seek a declaration that the document is void, illegal, or not binding on him (Para 6).
(C) Possession and Valuation - In determining the applicable provision under Section 24 of the Act, the Court is required to examine whether the plaintiff claims to be in possession or whether recovery of possession is sought as a consequential relief (Para 6).
(D) Judicial Application of Valuation Laws - Order determining court fee affects the valuable rights of litigants - Such determination must be based on applying facts to the relevant statutory provisions and settled principles of interpretation to avoid depriving the state of revenue or compelling a litigant to pay fees not sanctioned by law (Para 8).
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed seeking a declaration that two registered sale deeds were null, void, and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction for the removal of a fence and delivery of property, and a permanent injunction. The trial court directed the plaintiff to pay court fees based on the actual market value of the property, observing that the plaintiff had avoided seeking a formal declaration of title through clever drafting to minimize court fees.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order did not address the critical distinction between cancellation and declaration, the legal position governing suits by non-executants, the impact of the prayer for possession, or the statutory scheme underlying Section 24 of the Act. The court failed to analyze whether the various reliefs claimed were independent, consequential, or inseparably connected.
Issues: Whether the trial court's direction to pay court fees based on the actual market value of the property was correct and whether it properly considered the status of the plaintiff as a non-executant of the impugned sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: Determination of court fee requires an exercise in applying the facts of the case to the relevant statutory provisions and settled legal principles. Since the trial court failed to consider the legal distinction between a non-executant seeking a declaration versus an executant seeking cancellation, and failed to analyze the nature of the possession claimed, the order lacked the necessary legal foundation and required reconsideration.
Result: Writ petition allowed; trial court order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration on the question of court fees.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff argued sufficient court fee paid under Section 24(d); trial court erroneously directed payment on market value under Section 24(b). (Para 4 )
3. Trial court failed to distinguish between cancellation and declaration, and did not properly analyze reliefs or statutory provisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Court fee determination requires proper application of facts to statutory provisions and consideration of true nature of relief. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh consideration of court fee issues. (Para 9 )
6. Must a court determine the true substance of a suit beyond the phraseology of the prayer when assessing court fee?
Yes, the court must ascertain the true substance of the relief claimed, as clever drafting cannot alter the real nature of the suit. (Para 6 )
7. What is the distinction between a suit for cancellation and a suit for declaration when the plaintiff is not an executant?
A person who is not a party to the instrument is ordinarily entitled to seek a declaration that the document is void or not binding on him. (Para 6 )
8. What factors must a court consider when determining the applicable court fee provision under Section 24 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act?
The court must examine whether the plaintiff claims possession, seeks recovery of possession, or seeks a bare declaration with consequential relief. (Para 6 )
9. Is a trial court required to discuss the legal consequences flowing from the fact that the plaintiff is not an executant of the impugned deed?
Yes, the court must examine whether the plaintiff is a non-executant and apply the relevant legal principles governing such suits. (Para 7 )
ORDER :
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J.
The present writ petition is filed questioning an order dated 09.02.2026 in OS.No.123/2026 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Anekal, the plaintiff is before this Court.
2. The petitioner herein is a plaintiff in the suit. He has filed a suit seeking to declare the registered Sale Deed dated 25.04.2023 and another Sale Deed dated 29.05.2025 as null and void, and to hold that said Sale Deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. He also seeks a mandatory injunction to remove the existing barbed fence around the ‘B’ scheduled property, to an extent of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.46 of Thimmasandra village, and to deliver the same. He further seeks a permanent injunction in respect of the schedule ‘A’ property, by restraining defendant Nos.6, 7 and 28, their henchmen, agents, or whomsoever claiming under or through them, permanently from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property of the plaintiff. In the said suit, the present impugned order is passed by the Court regarding the sufficiency of the Court fee paid by the plaintiff. By the impugned order, the trial Court observes that, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the ‘A’ schedule property, i.e., Site No.15, formed in Survey No.46 of Thimmasandra Village, as per the BMRDA-approved layout plan formed by M/s. Apna Sapna, i.e., defendant No.1 herein. Such being the case, the plaintiff claims ownership over the site ‘A’ schedule property. However, the plaintiff cleverly did not seek the relief or declaration of his title with respect to the ‘A’ schedule property in order to avoid payment of Court fee. The plaintiff indirectly sought the relief of declaration that the Sale Deeds of the defendants are not binding on the plaintiff; such a declaration should be consequential to the main relief. The plaintiff should have sought the main relief with respect to the declaration of his title with respect to the ‘A’ schedule property. Thereafter, as a consequential relief, the plaintiff should have sought that the Sale Deeds of the defendants are not binding on the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff never left without seeking the main relief. He has sought declaratory relief that the Sale Deeds of the defendants are not binding on the plaintiff. The clever drafting of the plaintiff is to avoid payment of Court fees. If such litigation is entertained without payment of actual Court fee, it is a loss to the exchequer of the State.
3. The trial Court has further observed that the counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Venkatesh.S Vs. the State of Karnataka arising out of WP.No.10782/2018 dated 29.05.2018. In that decision, the Court dealt with a case in which the cancellation of the Sale Deed was sought for the defendants' failure to pay the entire sale consideration. Even in that case, the Court directed the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and to pay the Court fee on the market value of the property. Therefore, that decision will not help the plaintiff's case. Similarly, in another decision, when the plaintiff is not an executant of the Sale Deed, he is not bound to pay the Court fee under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Ranbir Singh and others , (2010) 12 SCC 112. In the case on hand, Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is not applicable. Therefore, the decision relied on by the counsel for the plaintiff cannot be made applicable to the case at hand. The plaintiff has valued the suit at Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of jurisdiction, valued the suit under Section 24(d), and pai
