Allowed

Parvathamma v. B.Jagadeesh

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/23636/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order that set aside a property suit for sufficiency of court fee was allowed. The High Court relied on a Full Bench precedent to hold that court fee issues should be decided along with merits, setting aside the interim order and directing the Trial Court to frame the issue.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 is set aside; a specific issue on court fee is to be framed and decided during the trial.

Parvathamma Vs B.Jagadeesh — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20293 WP No. 23636 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 23636 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRANNA AGE 61 YEARS, R/O RATHNA SHREE NILAYA, 9^TH CROSS, S.S. PURAM TUMAKURU - 572 101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., FOR

¶12

SRI. PATEL D KARE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

B. JAGADEESH, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O NEAR SREE SHIVAKUMARA SWAMIJI CIRCLE, KEB COLONY KOTHITHOPU ROAD TUMAKURU - 572 101

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM TUMAKURU ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:20293 WP No. 23636 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

O.S.NO.571/2015 DTD.6.12.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE W.P. AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in O.S.No.571/2015 by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru (for short 'the Trial Court'), on preliminary issue with regard to the Court Fee.

¶27

Heard Sri.Harish N.R., appearing for Sri.Patel D.Karegowda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

The petitioner has filed O.S.No.571/2015 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner having right, title, interest over the suit schedule property, consequential prayer to recover the possession of the suit schedule property and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, respondent filed a detailed written statement denying the assertion made in the plaint. The respondent has filed a memo

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:20293 WP No. 23636 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

indicating that the value of the suit schedule property would be Rs.29,71,920/-. The Trial Court considered the memo, the guidelines value notification and after hearing the contentions allowed the memo by directing the plaintiff to file fresh valuation slip and pay the court fee as per Sub-Registrar extract placed by the defendant within thirty days.

¶33

It is to be noticed that the defendant has raised objections with regard to the payment of court fee by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has valued the suit for a sum of Rs.6,89,910/-. The issue with regard to the court fee is required to be considered along with other issues. Admittedly the records indicate that the Court has not conducted any enquiry with regard to the Court fee. Hence, I am of the considered view that the said issue is required to be adjudicated along with the other issues. The Full Bench of this

¶34

Court in the case of Venkatesh R. Desaid Vs. Smt.Pushpa Hosmani and Others reported in 2019(1) KCCR 1(FB) has held that the issue with regard to the court fee can be considered along with other issues while deciding the suit on merits. Considering the same, the writ petition is need to be

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:20293 WP No. 23636 of 2021

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

allowed, I am of the considered view that the impugned order

¶39

deserved to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside.

¶40

The Trial Court shall frame the issue on Court Fee

¶41

and adjudicate the same by permitting the parties to adduce evidence and record a finding at the time of deciding the suit along with the other issues.

¶42

Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

¶43

Pending applications disposed.

¶44

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

CT:VS

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Parvathamma v. B.Jagadeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathamma v. B.Jagadeesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Four Flavours LLP Vs Mr. Deepak Sindhe

Sri. B.A. Radakrishna Vs Sri B a Sirish

Smt. M Manjula Vs Sri Seenappa

Thaseem Ali Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash S Rathod Vs State of Karnataka

The Manager Vs H. K. Marigowda