1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO.9362/2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. VINODHA I. SHETTY

D/O LATE SHYAMA SHETTY AND

W/O LATE INDRA V. SHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.24/1,

KRISHNADAM PATEL'S HOUSE,

AMBALAPADY VILLAGE,

UDUPI TALUK-576101.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. AJITH A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

SMT. LAKSHMI SHEDTHY

D/O LATE DODDAKKASHEDTHI,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

RESIDING AT SUBRAMANYANAGAR,

PUTTUR VILLAGE,

UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

2.

MRS. NAYANA M. SHETTY

W/O MEGHNATH J. SHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

SHETTY ESTATE,

CHAKALA,

ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400047.

3.

MRS. VINAYA S. SHETTY

W/O SATISH SHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

2

FLAT NO.801, 'A' WING,

BLACKSMITH, TOWER-1

SECTOR NO.6,

AIROLI, NAVI MUMBAI-400001.

4.

MRS. RESHMA R. SHETTY

W/O RAVICHANDRA SHETTY,

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.24/1,

KRISHNADAM PATEL'S HOUSE,

AMBALAPADY VILLAGE,

UDUPI TALUK-576101.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SMT. H.R.ANITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.01.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE

CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN) IN O.S.82/2012 AT ANNEXURE-F.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The

petitioner,

being

the

plaintiff

No.1

in

O.S.No.82/2012 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

Udupi, has filed this writ petition challenging an order

dated 07.01.2017, in terms of which, the Court allowed an

application filed by the defendant under Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as

"CPC" for short) read with Section 11(2) of the Karnataka

3

Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (henceforth

referred to as "the Act of 1958" for short) and directed the

plaintiffs to pay Court fee on the market value of the suit

property.

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.

The suit in O.S.No.82/2012 was filed for the

relief of declaration to cancel a release deed dated

18.06.2011

purportedly

executed

in

favour

of

the

defendant by Sri. Indra V. Shetty in respect of the 'A'

schedule properties and consequently, to partition the 'A'

schedule properties into two equal shares. The plaintiffs

claimed that the suit 'A' properties belonged to the mother

of the defendant and Sri. Indra V. Shetty, husband of

plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs. The mother of

the defendant died intestate and the 'A' schedule

properties devolved upon the defendant and Sri. Indra V.

Shetty, who later died on 12.11.2011. The plaintiffs

alleged that the defendant in collusion with the Sub-

4

Registrar had obtained a deed of settlement dated

18.06.2011 by undue influence and misrepresentation.

Hence, the plaintiffs sought for the reliefs mentioned

above.

4.

The suit was contested by the defendant, who

claimed that the settlement deed dated 18.06.2011 was

validly executed and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right,

title or interest. After issues were framed, the defendant

filed an application under Section 151 of CPC read with

Section 11(2) of the Act of 1958 to determine the proper

Court fee to be paid since the plaintiffs themselves had

valued the suit 'A' properties at a sum of Rs.86,48,000/-.

The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The Trial

Court after considering the contentions urged, held that

the plaintiffs had sought for cancellation of a release deed

and therefore, the suit ought to have been valued under

Section 38 of the Act of 1958. Since the plaintiffs

themselves had disclosed the value of the suit 'A'

5

properties at Rs.86,48,000/-, the Trial Court directed

payment of the Court fees on a sum of Rs.86,48,000/-.

5.

Bein