Disposed

Narendra Kumar v. Sri S Ashok Kumar

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026WP/39141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Trial Court's order accepting respondents' memo on court fees in a partition suit. The High Court, noting joint submissions, disposed of the petition by directing the petitioners to file a fresh valuation slip and pay fees under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, while keeping rival contentions left open. Outcome: Petitioners dire

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file a fresh valuation slip and pay necessary court fee on relief of partition u/s 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. All rival contentions kept o

Narendra Kumar Vs Sri S Ashok Kumar — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 39141 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE SHANTIHILAL LALJI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. KALPANA N., AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O S. NARENDRA KUMAR

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.155/9/2, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST STAGE, 5^TH CROSS, OKALIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 021

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. K. N. NITISH, FOR SRI. K. V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI S. ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SHANTHILAL LALJI,

¶16

SMT. A. DAKSHA, W/O SRI. S. ASHOKA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶17

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.809/8, JALARAM KRUPA, 61^ST CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M. V. SUNDARARAMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 12.11.2025 PASSED BY LEARNED V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN O.S.NO. 5221/2008 AT ANNX-J ON MEMO DTD. 14.09.2022.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition by the petitioners-plaintiffs in O.S.No.5221/2008

¶27

is directed against the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the memo filed by the respondents-defendants seeking direction to the petitioner plaintiff to pay court fee as sought for in the memo was accepted by the Trial Court, which allowed the memo filed by the respondents – defendants and directed the petitioners-plaintiffs to file fresh valuation slip and pay court fee, in accordance with law.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Senior counsel for the respondents-defendants and perused the material on record.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs:

¶33

“WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs most Humbly prays that this Hon'ble may be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree:-

¶34

a) For Partition declaring that Plaintiffs are entitled to half share in Plaint A Schedule property and 1st Plaintiffs is entitled to Half Share in Plaint B Schedule property and for separate possession of shares accordingly.

¶35

aa). To Declare the partition deed dated 21/06/2007, Gift Deed dated 21/06/2007, and Memorandum of Family Settlement dated. 21/06/2007 as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiffs.

¶36

b) Grant Such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶37

SCHEDULE 'A'

¶38

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Municipal No.36, situated at 2nd main road, Now called as Krantikavi Sarvagna Road, Srirampuram, Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Ward No.26-18, measuring East to West 109-0m (One Hundred And Nine Feet) and North to South 97'-0" (Ninety Seven Feet) and bounded on the

¶39

East By: Railway line,

¶40

West By: H.A.L. Bus Depot,

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

North by: Properties of Sri. M.C.Muddukrishna, Sri.M.C Ashok Kumar and sri. M.C.Ashwathanarayana, with a passage measuring 13 X 300 feet, running in the middle of the properties of the above mentioned parties, leading to the road connecting main road.

¶44

South By: H.A.L. bus Depot

¶45

SCHEDULE 'B'

¶46

All that piece and parcel of the property bearing no.809, present Municipal No.809/8, situated at 61st cross road, V Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike No.15, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 25’-0" (Twenty Five Feet) and North to South 41’-0" (Forty One Feet), and bounded on the:-

¶47

East By: Property No.808.

¶48

West By: Private Property North By: Road South By: Property no.796.”

¶49

The defendants having entered appearance contested

¶50

the suit by putting forth various defences and in addition there to, filed a memo inter alia contending that the relief of partition sought for by the plaintiffs was incorrectly valued and the court fee paid

¶51

was insufficient and as such, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The said memo on court fees filed by the respondents-defendants

¶56

reads as under:

¶57

“MEMO ON COURT FEES FILED BY THE

¶58

DEFENDANT

¶59

The counsel for the Defendant respectfully submits as under:

¶60

1. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking the relief of -

¶61

(i) Partition whereby the Plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of half share in Suit Schedule A Property and the 1 Plaintiff seeks half share in Salt Schedule & Property and

¶62

(ii) Declaration that the Partition Deed, Gilt Deed and Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 21.06.2007 are void and not binding on the Plaintiff (through amendment)

¶63

2. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has valued the reliefs sought for in this suit incorrectly and thus the Plaint is liable is be rejected on the following grounds:

¶64

(i) The relief of Partition is valued incorrectly as the Plaintiffs are admittedly not in possession of the Suit Schedule properties (Ret. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Plaint) and therefore ought to value the said relief under Section 35(1) as opposed to 35(2) of

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ("KCF&SV Act")

¶69

(ii) The Plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee for the relief of cancellation of the registered instruments mentioned hereinabove and accordingly liable to pay court fees under Section 38(1) of the KCF&SV Act

¶70

3 On Prayer (A) for Partition - The Plaintiffs have valued the relief of partition under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 ("KCF&SV Act"). This provision is only applicable in suits where the Plaintiff is in possession of the Suit Schedule Properties. The Plaintiff's own case as per paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Plaint is that they are not in possession of the Suit Schedule Properties. In such a case, the relief is to be valued as per Section 35(1) of the KCF&SV Act. The Plaintiff is liable to pay Court Fee on the market value of their alleged share in the Suit Schedule properties.

¶71

4. On Prayer (AA) for Cancellation - The Plaintiff has by way of amendment also sought for relief of declaration that certain registered instruments are not binding on them. It is an undisputed fact that the Plaintiffs are party to these instruments and were well aware of them at the time of filing of the Plaint as admitted in Paragraph 4 of the Plant. It is submitted that the period of limitation to seek cancellation of these instruments has long passed. It is evident that the Plaintiff has framed the relief of cancellation under a different

¶72

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

guise in order to overcome the issue of limitation and abuse the process of law with the intention of harassing the Defendants and defeating their rights

¶76

5. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has currently valued the relief under Section 24(d) of the KCF&SV Act. However, it is hereby clarified that the same is incorrect and the relief is to be valued under Section 38(1) of the KCF&SV Act. As any cancellation would affect the rights of the Defendant as well and would have the effect of tendering any rights created under the said instruments as void, the relief is to be valued as though the entirety of the instruments are being cancelled. Thus, the Plaintiff is liable to pay Court Fee on the value of the Suit Schedule properties.

¶77

6. The Valuation of the Suit Schedule properties and Court Fee payable by the Plaintiffs is as below:

¶78

SUIT SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY

¶79

Extent	:	10,573 Sq ft/982.263 Sq Mt.
Valuation of Property	:	Rs 54,400/Sq Mt (Ref Annexure A )+ 40% extra as it is a commercial property = Rs. 76,160 Sq Mt
Value of Property	:	Rs. 7.48.09.150/-
Plaintiff's claim	:	5286 Sq Ft/ 492.131 Sq Mt (1/2 share)
Value of Plaintiff's claim in Prayer (a)	:	Rs. 3,74,04,575/-
Court Fee payable under	:	Rs. 2,47,125 +Rs.1,47,023

¶80

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Section 35(1) of KCF & SV = Rs.3,94,147/-/Act r/w Schedule I, Article I(xvi) Value of Plaintiff's claim in : Rs. 7,48,09,150/Prayer (aa) Court Fee payable and 38(1) of : Rs.2,47,125/- + Rs.3,34,045 KCF & SV Act r/w Schedule I, = Rs.5,81,170/- Article I(xvi)

¶83

SUIT SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY

¶84

Extent : 1025 Sq ft/95.22 5 Mt. Valuation of Property : Rs. 1,00,000/Sq Mt (Ref Annexure B) Value of Property : Rs. 95,22,000/Plaintiff's claim : 512.5 Sq Ft/ 47.61 Sq Mt (1/2 share) Value of Plaintiff's : Rs. 47,61,000/claim in Prayer (a) Relevant Provision of KCF&SV Act : Section 35(1) of KCF&SV Act r/w Schedule I, Article I(xii) Court Fee payable under Section : Rs. 1,77,125 + Rs.19,025 35(1) of KCF&SV Act r/w Schedule = Rs. 1,96,150/I, Article I(xiii) Value of Plaintiff's claim in Prayer : Rs. 95,22,000/(aa) Court Fee payable under Section : Rs. 2,47,125 + Rs. 7,610 38(1) of KCF&SV Act r/w Schedule = Rs. 2,54,735/I, Article I(xvi)

¶85

7. It is thus evident that the Plaintiff has not paid the requisite Court fee in accordance with the KCF&SC Act and the Plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground.

¶86

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the memo be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶90

The petitioners opposed the said memo inter alia contending that the suit had been properly valued and the Court Fee paid was sufficient and there was no impediment for the Trial Court to proceed further with the matter. By the impugned order, the Trial Court proceeded to accept and allow the memo filed by the respondents-defendants and directed the petitioners-plaintiffs to file a fresh valuation slip and pay Court Fee, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, accepting the memo, the petitioners are before this court by way of the present petition.

¶91

Learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions submits that despite having come to the conclusion that the relief of declaration at prayer No.2 sought for by the petitioners-plaintiffs had been correctly valued under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act of 1958”) the Trial court had come to the erroneous conclusion that relief No.1 for partition was liable to be valued under Section 35(1) of the said Act of 1958 and not under Section 35(2) of the said Act

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

of 1958, as contented by the petitioners. He would further submit on instructions that without prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioners would file a fresh valuation slip valuing the relief of partition at prayer No.1 under Section 35(1) of the said act of 1958 and also pay requisite Court Fee and the present petition may be disposed of accordingly by leaving open all rival contentions to be decided by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶96

Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that appropriate orders may be passed in the light of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

¶97

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and joint submissions made by both sides, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing certain directions to the petitioners only in relation to the relief of partition at prayer No.1 sought for by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit.

¶98

In the result, I pass the following:

¶99

ORDER

¶100

(i) The petition is hereby disposed of.

¶101

11 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:3673 WP No. 39141 of 2025

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

(ii) It is directed that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, petitioner shall file a fresh valuation slip and pay necessary court fee on the relief of partition u/s. 35(1) of the of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, pursuant to which the Trial Court shall proceed further in the matter and all rival contentions in this regard are kept/left open to be decided by the trial Court, in accordance with law.

¶105

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶106

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26

Narendra Kumar v. Sri S Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar v. Sri S Ashok Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Star India Private Limited Vs Kannada Film Producers Association

Sri.a.S.Ashok Kumar Vs Sri.Venkatachalapathy Shetty S

Smt D R Poornima Vs Smt. Leelamma

Smt Chandramma Puttabuddi Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Bharathamma Vs Sri Thayappa

Smt. Suhasini T Vs Smt. Sujatha Atri