Allowed¶54

Sri. Munnegowda v. Sri. Ramdass

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025WP/18371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (S Vishwajith Shetty, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:49183; 26-11-2025), WP No. 18371 of 2022 (GM-CPC) under Article 227: court fee and suit valuation for agricultural land in a suit for declaration and possession; Section 24(a) r/w Section 7(2), Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958; deemed market value = 25 times annual revenue where land forms an entire estate paying revenue to Government; order directing deficit court fee set aside; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.682 of 2022 by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside; pending IAs do not survive for consideration and are disposed of. ¶54

Sri. Munnegowda Vs Sri. Ramdass — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in directing the petitioner/plaintiff to pay court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958 without appreciating that the suit schedule property is agricultural and that its market value falls to be determined under Section 7(2). +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

The trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958, without appreciating that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property whose market value should be determined as provided under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Although the reliefs in the suit fall to be valued under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958, the court fee is payable on the market value of the property, and in suits falling under Section 24(a) the market value of the property shall be deemed to be 25 times the revenue so payable where the land forms an entire estate paying annual revenue to the Government.

¶48

Key takeaways

It weighed with the Court that in the companion suit O.S.No.91 of 2022, filed by the petitioner before the very same Court seeking similar relief in respect of adjacent property, court fee had been paid by valuing the suit schedule property as provided under Section 24(a) r/w Section 7(2) of the Act, 1958.ratio¶48
On perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.682 of 2022 and the RTC extract of the suit schedule property produced at Annexure-F, the Court found that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India allowed, setting aside the order dated 20.07.2022 of the IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in O.S.No.682 of 2022, whereby the plaintiff was directed to pay the deficit court fee in a suit for declaration of title and possession of agricultural land. Held: although the reliefs fall to be valued under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958, court fee is payable on the market value as determined under Section 7(2) of the Act, under which the market value of land in such suits is deemed to be 25 times the annual revenue where the land forms an entire estate paying annual revenue to the Government; the trial Court erred in directing payment under Section 24(a) without this determination. Consistency with the companion suit O.S.No.91 of 2022 (adjacent property, fee paid under Section 24(a) r/w Section 7(2)) reinforced the conclusion; pending IAs were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO. 18371 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MUNNEGOWDA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT BANNDE HOSUR VILLAGE KANNUR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 562 149.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI B. MANJUNATH, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI RAMDASS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. PREMA W/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶14

SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶16

SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT BANNDE HOSUR VILLAGE, KANNUR POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BANGALORE EAST TALUK BANGALORE - 562 149.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RADHA RAMASWAMY, AGA (VK NOT FILED) V/O DTD:04.08.2023, NOTICE TO RESPONDETS D/W)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT BANGALURU RURAL IN O.S.NO.682/2022 DTD.20.7.2022.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to set aside the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.682 of 2022 passed by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent - State.

¶30

Petitioner has filed O.S.No.682 of 2022 before Jurisdictional civil Court, Bangalore Rural District, seeking the relief of declaration of title and possession of the suit schedule 'B' property. In the said suit, the order impugned has been passed by the trial Court directing the petitioner / plaintiff to

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

pay the deficit Court fee and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated

¶36

the grounds urged in the petition submits that suit schedule property is an agricultural property and though the reliefs sought for in the suit is required to be valued as provided under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (Hereinafter referred to as 'The Act of 1958' for short). the Court fee payable shall be as provided under Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. He submits that petitioner

¶37

has filed another suit in O.S.No.91 of 2022 before the very same Court in respect of adjacent property and in the said suit also, Court fee was paid by the petitioner / plaintiff as provided under Section 24(a) R/w Section 7(2) of the Act of 1958. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned AGA has argued in support of the impugned order.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.682 of 2022 would

¶43

go to show that suit schedule property is an agricultural property and the petitioner has produced the copy of the RTC extract of the suit schedule property at Annexure - F to this petition. Petitioner has sought for the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the suit schedule property and therefore the Court fee payable would be as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act, 1958. Section 7 of the Act of 1958 provides for determination of the market value and Section 7(2) provides that market value of lands in suits falling under Sections 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be where the lands forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to the government then 25 times the revenue so paid shall be the market value of the property. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter.

¶44

Section 24(a) of the Act, 1958 provides that Court

¶45

fee shall be payable on the market value of the property whereas Section 7(2) of Act provides that market value of the

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

property in suits which fall under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958 shall be deemed to be 25 times the revenue so payable where the land forms an entire estate paying annual revenue to the Government. In addition to the same, material on record would go to show that before the very same Court suit in O.S.No.91 of 2022, which is filed by the petitioner herein seeking a similar relief in respect of a adjacent property, Court fee has been paid by valuing the suit schedule property as provided under Section 24(a) R/w Section 7(2) of the Act, 1958. Under the circumstances, the trial Court was not justified in passing the impugned order and directing the petitioner to pay Court fee as provided under Section 24(a) of the Act of 1958 without appreciating that the suit schedule property is an agricultural property and therefore the market value of the property should be determined as provided under Section 7(2) of Act of 1958.

¶49

Accordingly the following:-

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:49183 WP No. 18371 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.682 of 2022 passed by the Court of IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is set aside.

¶55

Pending IAs' do not survive for consideration and

¶56

accordingly the same are disposed of.

¶57

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶58

NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Sri. Munnegowda v. Sri. Ramdass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Munnegowda v. Sri. Ramdass

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs H T Muniraju

Govindaswamy Vs N. Rajamma

Sri C Ramakrishnaiah Vs Poojari Gowda

Mr.P.K. Khalid Ahmed Vs Mr. P. Mohammed Yousuff

Sri Lokesh Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Prashanth T Vs Sri Venkateshappa