SRI. ANJAYYA v. M/S. ECODE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD

3. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA N, S/O LATE KAKI NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

4. SRI. NAGARAJU N, S/O LATE KAKI NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SUBHASH NAGARA, MUDDAREDDYPALLY, HINDUPUR TALUKA, SATHYA SAI DISTRICT - 515 201 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE (BY SRI. RAVINDRA G.KOLLE., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONERS M/S. ECODE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY (P) LTD, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4138 WP No. 29945 of 2025 HC-KAR NO.356/1, 16TH MAIN, 4TH "T" BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 041, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR & C. T. O - DR. B. S. RANGARAJ AGED MAJOR. (Notice to Respondent is dispensed with) …RESPONDENT THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PAVAGADA IN O.S.NO.144 OF 2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.144 of 2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Pavagada is directed against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025, whereby, the Trial Court directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem Court-fee on the market value of the - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4138 WP No. 29945 of 2025 HC-KAR suit schedule property, without even issuing notice to the respondent/defendant. Accordingly, proposed, notice to the respondent/defendant is dispensed with.

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent/defendant seeking the following reliefs in respect of the suit schedule properties mentioned hereunder: PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE The plaintiffs prays for judgment and decree declaring transaction dated 05.01.2018 is cancelled or rescinded and for directions to the sub-Registrar Pavagada Taluk to cancel the sale agreement dated 05.01.2018 by the necessary book entering maintained for this purpose and for costs and such other reliefs that may be deem fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. the same SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Total Extent of land 2.25 29.12 Sy. No. 2 Kharab 0.03 0.18 Remaining 2.22 28.34 Parties Name Hanumantharayappa Hanumantharayappa Mutated Land 0.17 2.30 - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4138 WP No. 29945 of 2025 HC-KAR 16 32 36 37 35

1.34 2.25 32.07 5.21 3.08 77.12

0.03 0.01 5.14 0.09 0.03 6.11

1.31 2.24 26.33 5.12 3.05 77.01 Hanumantharayappa Hanumantharayappa Hanumantharayappa Hanumantharayappa Hanumantharayappa Hanumantharayappa

0.11 0.17 4.15 0.35 0.20,08 9.25

3. As can be seen from the reliefs sought for by the petitioners/plaintiffs and the nature/character of the suit schedule properties, they are described as agricultural lands and the same has not been converted/diverted for non-agricultural purposes, as can be seen from the revenue records/RTCs produced by the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, for the purpose of payment of Court-fee, the petitioners/plaintiffs valued the suit schedule properties under Section 24(d) r/w Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'KCF & SV Act').

4. When the matter came up before the Trial Court, after hearing the petitioners/plaintiffs, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed an incorrect Valuation Slip and ought to have - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4138 WP No. 29945 of 2025 HC-KAR invoked Section 38 of the of the KCF & SV Act instead of Section 24(d) and since Section 7(2) of the of the KCF & SV Act was not applicable, the Trial Court did not even issue notice or suit summons to the respondent/ defendant and instead directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay ad-valorem Court-fee on the plaint along with a fresh Valuation Slip as hereunder: "The plaintiffs are hereby directed to pay Court Fee on an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- per acre in total Rs.16,84,375/- for 9 acre 25 guntas which is the amount mentioned in the agreement of sale as per Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act along with fresh valuation slip".

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

6. A perusal of the plaint averments and documents produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs will prima-facie indicate that the suit schedule properties had not been converted/diverted for non-agricultural purposes. - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4138 WP No. 29945 of 2025 HC-KAR Further, the alleged Sale Agreement dated 05.01.2018 in respect of which the petitioner had filed the suit also described the suit schedule properties as agricultural/ un- converted lands/properties. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court clearly fell in error in coming to the prima- facie conclusion that the petitioner was duty bound to value the suit under Section 38 of the KCF & SV Act and not either under 24(d) or 7(2) of the KCF & SV Act. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the Trial Court to issue suit summons and emergent notice respondents and adjudicate upon the issue relating to valuation and court-fee after appearance of respondent/ defendant before the Trial Court, in accordance with law. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER i) ii) Petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4138 WP No. 29945 of 2025 HC-KAR iii) The Trial Court is directed to issue suit summons/ emergent notice to the respondent/defendant and proceed further, in accordance with law. iv) All rival contentions between the parties including the issues/question as to valuation and court-fee are kept open to be decided by the Trial Court, after appearance of the respondent/defendant before the Trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE DH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17