M/S Sri Sai Developers Vs Chief Secretary

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.15050/2022 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SRI SAI DEVELOPERS HAVING OFFICE NO.352/3 SRI OMKARA NILAYA 24TH MAIN, 5TH PHASE J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. C. CHENNA REDDY.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NITHISH K.N. ADV., FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADV.,)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶15

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KANDAYA BHAVANA

¶21

K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶22

TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK OFFICE ANEKAL

¶23

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.

¶24

SPECIAL TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK OFFICE ANEKAL

¶25

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562106.

¶26

DEPUTY TAHASILDAR NADAKACHERI ATTIBELE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.

¶27

REVENUE INSPECTOR ATTIBELE CIRCLE SYNDICATE RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA BUILDING ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.

¶28

VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH SYNDICATE RYTHARA SEVA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHI BUILDING ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562107.

¶29

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE PILLI PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

¶30

PAPANNA S/O LATE PILLI PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

RAMAIAH S/O LATE KUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶35

T. VENKATESH S/O LATE KHURUBAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶36

SMT. RUKKAMMA W/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶37

MANGALA D/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.

¶38

SATHISHA S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶39

VENKATARAJU S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶40

VENKATESH .B S/O LATE BARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶41

RESPONDENT NOS.10 TO 18 ARE R/AT BALLUR VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU-562107.

¶42

…RESPONDENTS

¶43

(BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1 TO R9 V/O DTD:29.07.2022 NOTICE TO R10 TO R18 ARE D/W)

¶44

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.6.1.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.188/2021 BY THE

¶45

4 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

LEARNED SR. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL AT ANNEXURE-F & ETC.

¶49

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

¶50

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶51

ORAL ORDER

¶52

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in OS.No.188/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (for short ‘the trial Court’).

¶53

Heard Sri.Nithish K.N., learned counsel for Sri.K.V.Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Azra J Dundge, learned AGA for respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record.

¶54

The trial Court under the impugned order, has raised an objection with regard to the payment of Court fee and directed the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit under Sections 24(b), 38(1) r/w Section 7(2)(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1960 (for

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

short ‘the Act’) and to pay the Ad-Valorem Court fee on or before the next date of hearing. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has filed the suit seeking relief of declaration that the collusive decree obtained by defendant Nos.10 to 18 in OS.No.228/2019 is not binding on the them and set aside the same, and other consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.10 to 18, their agents, men etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is further to be noticed that the petitioner has valued the suit under Sections 24(a), 24(d) and 26(c) of the Act and has paid Court fee of Rs.25/- each by valuing the suit at Rs.1,000/-, in addition to the fixed Court fee of Rs.25/- payable on the relief of injunction.

¶58

The decision of this Court in the case of

¶59

K.L.Venugopal and Others v. Vimala K. Venugopal

¶60

and Others¹ at paragraph Nos.16 and 20 has held as under:

¶61

1 LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-319; MANU/KA/2200/2018

¶62

6 -

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

“ 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112 at page 7, 8 and 9 has held as under:

¶66

"7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a nonexecutant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance can be brought out by the following illustration relating to ‘A’ and B' -- two brothers. ‘A’ executes a sale deed in favour of C'. Subsequently A' wants to avoid the sale. ‘A’ has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by ‘A’ is invalid/void and non- est/illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as nonbinding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a nonexecutant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act.

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

8. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.

¶71

9. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that the deeds do not bind the "co-parcenery" and for joint possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court fee was computable under section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. The trial court and the High Court were therefore not justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that therefore court fee had to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deeds."

¶72

20. Admittedly in the present case, the plaintiffs are not executants of the document sought as null and void. They are only seeking declaration of the said Sale Deed as null and void and not binding on them, not amounts to cancellation. Therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact in the very judgment at para-18 while discussing the difference between executant, who executes the Sale Deed and stranger, who has not executed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:

¶73

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

"18. The High Court posed two questions, namely, (i) whether in the Suit filed for Declaration that the Sale Deeds are invalid, Court Fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Act is incorrect and (ii) whether the impugned order directing the Plaintiff to pay the Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act suffers from any infirmity warranting interference. Dealing with the factual matrix, the High Court observed:

¶76

"Thus, the Plaintiff himself is a party to the Sale Deed; when the Party himself seeks to get rid of the Sale Deeds in substance it amounts to Cancellation of Decree. The Plaintiff might seek to avoid the Sale Deeds if he is not a party to the Sale Deeds. But, since the Plaintiff himself is a party to the Sale Deeds before he is suing for any relief, the Plaintiff must first obtain the cancellation of the Sale Deeds."

¶77

And again:

¶78

"The word "Cancellation" implies that the persons suing should be a party to the document. Strangers are not bound by the documents and are not obliged to sue for cancellation. When the party to the document is suing, challenging the document, he must first obtain cancellation before getting any further relief. Whether cancellation is prayed for or not or even it is impliedly sought for in substance, the Suit is one for cancellation. in the present case, when the Plaintiff attacks the Sale Deeds as having been obtained from him under fraud and misrepresentation the Plaintiff cannot seek for any further relief without setting aside the Sale Deeds.

¶79

9 -

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

x x x x x

¶83

The allegation on the Plaint in substance mounts to cancellation of the document. Though the prayer is couched in the form of seeking declaration that the document is not valid and not binding, the relief in substance indirectly amounts to seeking for cancel- lation of the Sale Deed. Learned District Munsif was right in ordering payment of Court Fee under Section 40 of the Act. This Revision Petition has no merits and is bound to fail."

¶84

Being of this view, the High Court dismissed the civil revision and directed the plaintiff to pay court fee with further stipulation that unless paid, plaint would stand rejected."”

¶85

It would also be useful to refer to the decision

¶86

of this Court in the case of V.S.Balasubramanyam and

¶87

Others v. L.K.Trust and Others² at paragraph Nos.4 and

¶88

5 held as under:

¶89

“ 4. The first prayer in the suit is to declare that plaintiffs are not bound by any arrangement made or documents entered into between the defendants interse pertaining to the suit schedule properties. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs this prayer falls under Section 24(d) of the Act and the court fee paid on the plaint as correct. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the defendants contend that nature of

¶90

2 MANU/KA/0254/2009; ILR 2009 KARNATAKA 4276

¶91

10 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

declaration and injunction sought in the plaint falls under Section 24(b) of the Act. It is useful to extract the entire Section 24 of the Act and the same is as under:

¶95

24. Suits for declaration: — In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25,:

¶96

(a) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher;

¶97

(b) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees one thousand, whichever is higher,

¶98

(c) X x xxx

¶99

(d) In other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees one thousand whichever is higher.

¶100

5. There is no dispute in this case that the plaintiffs are not seeking declaration of title in the plaint schedule immovable property. Plaintiffs contend that they are in possession of plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs are only seeking declaration that they are not bound by any arrangement or documents entered into between the defendants interse pertaining to the suit

¶101

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

schedule property. The plaintiffs are not seeking any consequential relief of injunction. On the other hand the nature of injunction prayed in the plaint is not consequential to the nature of declaration. The plaintiffs prayed for mandatory injunction and other reliefs are valued separately and separate Court fee is paid. Therefore the nature of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs do not fall under Section 24(b) of the Act. On the other hand, the nature of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs falls under Section 24(d) of the Act. The Trial Court committed an error in holding that the prayer in the plaint falls under Section 24(b) of the Act.”

¶104

Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid

¶105

down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error in directing the petitioner/plaintiff to value the suit under Sections 24(b), 38(1) r/w Section 7(2)(d) of the Act. The relief sought by the petitioner does not pertain to any specific immovable property and the only relief is to declare that the earlier judgment and decree passed in OS.No.228/2019 are not binding on the petitioner/plaintiff. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was not a party to the said suit. Therefore, the question of payment of Court fee as ordered by the trial Court under Section 24(b) and

¶106

12 -

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:26745 W.P. No.15050/2022

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Section 38(1) r/w Section 7(2)(d) of the Act does not arise. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed , the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 passed in OS.No.188/2021 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal is hereby set aside.

¶110

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶111

ABK

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

M/S Sri Sai Developers v. Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Sai Developers v. Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C T Rangaswamaiah Vs C S Ramesh

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri P Srirammayya

Sri. Bettaswamygowda Vs Smt Narasamma

Smt. Pushpa Vs Sri. v. Manjunath

Mahesha Vs Smt. Honnamma

Sri Hulugappa Vs Malleshappa