Heard learned counsel Sri Vasanth Madhava appearing on

behalf of petitioner and learned counsel Sri Skanda R.K. Rao on

behalf of learned counsel Sri T.N. Vishwanatha for respondent

No.3.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner / plaintiff

being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 05.03.2014

passed by the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in OS

No.782/2008, vide Annexure-E.

petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.782/2008

for the following reliefs:

“(a) Declaration that the Gift Deed executed by the

Defendant No.1 in favour of the Defendant No.3 in

respect of the schedule property is obtained by

threat, coercion, fraud and illegal process of law

and not binding on the plaintiff and persons

claiming under the plaintiff;

(b) Grant an order of permanent injunction

restraining the Defendant No.3 from alienating or

encumbering the schedule property in any manner;

(c) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court

deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the

case, including costs.”

- 4 -

4.

The suit filed by the plaintiff is clubbed along with

another suit in OS No.7511/2007 filed by the plaintiff for

permanent injunction. The matter was taken up together and

common evidence and common judgment came to be passed.

The trial Court dismissed the suit in OS No.782/2008 for the

relief of declaration and permanent injunction and partly

allowed the suit in OS No.7511/2007 filed praying for

permanent injunction.

5.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the original suit and

partly allowing the other suit both the respective parties

preferred RFA No. 15/2014 and RFA No.1873/2013 before this

Court, which are pending adjudication.

6.

After obtaining the certified copy of the judgment

and decree, the present petitioner / plaintiff realised that the

trial Court proceeded to pass an order on 05.03.2014, while

dismissing the suit and directed the petitioner / plaintiff to pay

Court Fee under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and

Suits Valuation Act (in short ‘the Act’ for brevity) and not under

Section 24(b) & (c) of the Act, which is the subject matter of

the present writ petition.

- 5 -

7.

It is vehement contention of the learned counsel for

petitioner / plaintiff that the conclusion arrived at or drawn by

the trial Court directing the plaintiff to pay Court Fee is totally

illegal, erroneous, unsustainable and perverse. He further

contends that the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking the relief of

cancellation of the gift deed and that it is not binding on the

plaintiff for the reason stated in the plaint and to declare the

same as null and void. Accordingly, based on the said relief for

declaration sought, the plaintiff paid the Court Fee under

Section 24(b) & (c) of the Act, which is correct and there is no

need to value the suit under the provisions of Section 38(1) of

the Act. This aspect of the matter was vehemently argued

before the trial Court, which was negatived and it is not

accepted and trial Court proceeded to order directing the

petitioner / plaintiff to pay Court Fee as per the provisions of

Section 38(1) of the Act. Therefore, he contends that the order

passed by the trial Court is erroneous, unsustainable in law and

against the precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and

seeks to set aside the same, consequently allow the writ

petition.

- 6 -

8.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3,

who is the Defendant No.3 before the trial Court, vehemently

contends that the petitioner / plaintiff has sought the prayer in

the manner to seek to set aside and annul the gift deed

executed by respondent No.1 / Defendant No.1 in favour of

respondent No.3 /Defendant No.3. Therefore, the trial Court is

right in directing the plaintiff to pay Court Fee under Section

38(1) of the Act, which cannot be set aside and the same is

correct. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the writ

petition.

9.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 – Defendant

No.3 further contends that both the parties, ie., plaint