1. Writ petition under Article 227 challenging trial court order rejecting memo on court fee in suit for declaration and injunction. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438446
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S Vishwajith Shetty, J
Lakshmamma – Appellant
Versus
B Sujatha – Respondent
WP No. 27300 of 2023
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Govindraj
For the Respondents: Nataraja H C
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Govindraj
For the Respondents: Nataraja H C
A suit seeking a declaration that a gift deed is null and void with a consequential injunction is distinct from a suit for cancellation of a deed; thus, court fees under the cancellation provision (Section 38) do not apply.
Headnote:(A) Court Fees - Valuation in Suit for Declaration - Distinction between cancellation of instrument and declaration of nullity - Where the relief sought is a declaration that a gift deed is null and void and for consequential permanent injunction, and not for the cancellation of the deed, Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is not attracted. (Para 6)
(B) Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Application of Section 24 - Where a suit is filed for declaration and consequential injunction, valuation under Section 24(b) or 24(d) may be applicable; further, if the property is agricultural land, Section 7(2) applies, exempting court fee based on market value. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a gift deed was correctly valued under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, or whether Section 38 relating to cancellation of deeds was applicable.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued court fee required under Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fees Act; respondents supported trial court's order. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Suit was for declaration and injunction, not cancellation of gift deed, so Section 38 did not apply. (Para 6 )
4. Valuation under Section 24(d) applies when suit not covered by Section 24(a) or (b); Section 38 irrelevant for declaration and injunction. (Para 7 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; trial court's order rejecting memo on court fee upheld. (Para 8 )
6. Does Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees Act apply to a suit seeking only declaration and injunction?
No, Section 38 applies only to suits for cancellation of instruments, not for declaration and injunction, which involve different reliefs. (Para 6 )
7. When is valuation under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees Act appropriate?
Section 24(d) applies when a suit for declaration and consequential relief is not covered by Section 24(a) or (b). (Para 7 )
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE / QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09/10/2023 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, RAMANGAR IN OS 94/2015 ON THE MEMO (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed by defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 assailing order dated 09.10.2023 passed on the memo dated 07.06.2023 filed in O.S.No.94/2015 by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondent No.1 herein has filed O.S.No.94/2015 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court at Ramanagara seeking the relief of declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect to the suit schedule property. Contesting defendants have entered appearance in the suit and filed their written statement opposing the suit claim. It appears that a memo dated 07.06.2023 was filed in O.S.No.94/2015 by the petitioners herein alleging that proper court fee was not paid by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments addressed on both sides, has rejected the said memo vide the order impugned. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners who are defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 in O.S.No.94/2015 are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit is filed for cancellation of the gift deed. Therefore, court fee had to be paid as provided under Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act'). The suit is valued for the purpose of court fee under Section 24(d) of the Act, which is not permissible. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of SHRI.MADAN DATTARAM DESHPANDE VS. SMT.SAROJYA AND OTHERS, in CRP.No.253/2008 disposed of on 04.09.2015 and Asuntha D'souza vs. Joyce Paksina D'souza nee D.Mello and Another reported in ILR 2017 Karnataka 2657.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the order impugned.
6. Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.94/2015 would go to show that the plaintiff has sought to grant a judgment and decree declaring the gift deed dated 08.09.2014 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar at Ramanagara as null and void and also has sought for a decree of consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. From a reading of the reliefs prayed for in the suit, it is very clear that the suit is filed seeking a decree of declaration as well as permanent injunction and no relief is sought for cancellation of the gift deed. Therefore, section 38 of the Act does not get attracted for the purpose of payment of court fee in the present case.
7. When a suit is filed for declaration and for possession the same is required to be valued for the purpose of court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act and when the suit is filed seeking the relief of declaration and consequential injunction, the suit is required to be valued for the purpose of court fee as provided under Section 24(b). In cases which are not covered either under Section 24(a) or under 24(b), then Section 24(d) would be applicable. In the present case, the plaintiff has valued the suit as provided under Section 24(d) of the Act for the purpose of payment of the court fee and the Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter has rightly rejected the memo dated 07.06.2023 filed on behalf of the defendant. Even otherwise if the suit were to be valued as provided under Section 24(a) or under 24(b) of the Act, since the suit schedule property is an agricultural land, then Section 7(2) of the Act gets attracted and therefore, court fee is not required to be paid on the market value of the suit schedule property.
8. In the case of ASUNTHA
