IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO.10558 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI MANBDALESHWARA SWAMY COMMITTEE MANDLI N.T. ROAD, SHIVMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY M SANNAIAH, S/O M.MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NEW MANDLI, SHIVAMOGGA CITY.

2. SRI MANBDALESHWARA SWAMY COMMITTEE MANDLI N.T.ROAD,SHIVMOGGA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ESHWARAPPA, NEW MANDLI SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAGANGADHAR G.S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RAMAPPA DEAD BY LRS

2. SMT.YASHODAMMA W/O H.S.RAMAPPA

3. SMT.CHAYA D/O LATE H.S.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

4. R.VISHWANATHA S/O LATE H.S.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 5. SHASHIDARA S/O LATE H.S.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, 6. SRIDHARA S/O LATE H.S.RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE R/AT AGASAVALLI VILLAGE, SHIMOGA TALUK-577 202.

7. VASANTHI D/O LATE H.S.RAMAPPA HOUSEHOLD WORK SRI ANNAPURNESHWARI SAW MIL NEAR PAPER FACTORY, SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.

8. H.S.CHIDAMBAR S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O OLD MANDLI NT ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 202.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & R8;

R3 TO R7 ARE SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, JR.DN., AND JMFC SHIVAMOGGA IN O.S.NO.709/2012 I.E., ORDERS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE DATED 20.01.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AS THE SAME IS IMPUGNED, PERVERSE, CAPRICIOUS AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 20.01.2019 in O.S.No.709/2012 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Order"). By the Impugned Order, the preliminary issue on the question of valuation for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction was answered against the petitioners/plaintiffs and it was held that the suit relief (a) would be valued under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "KCF Act") and the suit relief (b) would be valued under Section 38 of the KCF Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that so far it concerns the Impugned Order on relief (a), the petitioners do not have any grievance against the same and would be complying with the same within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed by this Court. However, he submits that so far it concerns second part of the Impugned Order, which is the relief (b), Section 38 of the KCF Act would not be applicable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prayer (b) in the plaint, which is a prayer for declaration that the partition deed is not enforceable against the petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned counsel further submits that, it is a settled law that where an executant of the deed wants a deed to be annulled, the relief of cancellation is sought. However, where a non- executant seeks the same relief, a declaration is to be sought. It is contended that the petitioners being non-executants have only sought for a declaration and fixed court fee is to be paid accordingly.

3.1 Reliance in this behalf is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, (2010) 12 SCC 112 as well as on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kunhanna Shetty vs. Cecilia Crasta and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine KAR 13024

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8, on the other hand, submits that the relief as sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs is incorrect since they were required to seek the relief of possession.

5. As stated above, the first part of the Impugned Order is not the subject m