SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 438446

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
SMT LAKSHMAMMA – Appellant
Versus
SMT B SUJATHA – Respondent
WP 27300/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO. 27300 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA,

W/O LATE BORANNA,

AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 30, 1st MAIN ROAD,

7th CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT,

BANGALORE - 560 078.

2. SRI. RAMESH KUMAR,

S/O LATE BORANNA,

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 30, 1st MAIN ROAD,

7th CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT,

BANGALORE - 560 078. 3. SMT. B L SUMITHA, W/O SRI. GANGADHAR,

Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

by KAVYA R

R/AT NO. 26 GURUPRIYA MANSION,

Location: High

YELACHENAHALLI,

court of

Karnataka KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,

BANGALORE.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. AJAY GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT B SUJATHA

W/O H C KRISHNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 60, JYOTHI LAYOUT,

YELACHENAHALLI,

KRISHNADEVARAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078.

2. SMT SUVITHA, W/O SRI. Y VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT YALAKKI GANIGARA PALYA, BANASHANKARI 6th STAGE, 4th D BLOCK, BANGALORE - 560 062.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NATARAJA H C.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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 possessi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top