- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.52810/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SMT. R.M. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA W/O G. THYAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SRI. R.M. LOKESH S/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 4. R.M. MANJULA D/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. by RUPA V Location: HIGH 5. SRI. R.M. HARISH COURT OF S/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.82/1 ITI LAYOUT, 7TH CROSS 1ST PHASE, J P NAGARA BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA, ADV.,) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 AND: 1. SMT. M. TULASI W/O SRI. RAJASHEKAR D/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.49, SINGAPURA MAIN ROAD SINGAPUR LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097. 2. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.22, GROUND FLOOR 9TH CROSS, CUBBON PET BENGALURU-560002. 3. SMT. M. DHANALAKSHMI W/O A.V. RAVIKUMAR D/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.4/126, MASJID ROAD CROSS NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. 4. SMT. R. PRAMILA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

W/O LATE V. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN ROAD (SRI HAKKA RASTHE) BINNY LAYOUT, HAMPI NAGAR VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE BENGALURU-560104. 5. SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.22, THIRD FLOOR 9TH CROSS, CUBBON PET BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD C. REDDY, ADV., FOR SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 SMT. RASHMI K, ADV., FOR SRI. M.K. SHIVARAJU, ADV., FOR R4 R5 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNX-A DATED 27.03.2019, PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-23) ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2659/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.2, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 5 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) Quash the impugned order Annexure ‘A’ dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Hon’ble XXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-23) on IA.No.2 in OS.No.2659/2017 and consequently allow the IA.No.2, filed by the petitioners/defendant No.1 to 5. b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble court as deems fit in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090

W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material on record. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed a detailed written statement denying averments made in the plaint by contending that there was an earlier partition on 15.09.1975, under which certain properties were allotted to the defendants’ grandmother, and that she had executed gift deeds in their favour, under which they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 contending that the suit had not been properly valued, as the plaintiffs were not in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs opposed the said application, contending that in the plaint, they specifically pleaded that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the application.

4. It is to be noticed that the defendants have specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties which has been denied by the plaintiffs. In view of the aforesaid assertion, I am of the considered view that the trial Court is required to frame an issue on the suit valuation and payment of court fee, and the said issue is required to be tried along with the other issues in the suit. My view gains support from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt.Pushpa Hosmani and Others1. In view of the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: 1 ILR 2018 Karnataka 5095 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.03.2019 passed on IA.No.2 in OS.No.2659/2017 by the XXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-23) is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.2 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is disposed of by directing the trial Court to frame the issue on court fee and try the same along with the other issues. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.52810/2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SMT. R.M. BHAGYALAKSHMI D/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA W/O G. THYAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SRI. R.M. LOKESH S/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 4. R.M. MANJULA D/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. by RUPA V Location: HIGH 5. SRI. R.M. HARISH COURT OF S/O LATE R. MUNIYAPPA KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT NO.82/1 ITI LAYOUT, 7TH CROSS 1ST PHASE, J P NAGARA BENGALURU-560078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.V. MANJUNATHA, ADV.,) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 AND: 1. SMT. M. TULASI W/O SRI. RAJASHEKAR D/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.49, SINGAPURA MAIN ROAD SINGAPUR LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560097. 2. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.22, GROUND FLOOR 9TH CROSS, CUBBON PET BENGALURU-560002. 3. SMT. M. DHANALAKSHMI W/O A.V. RAVIKUMAR D/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.4/126, MASJID ROAD CROSS NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064. 4. SMT. R. PRAMILA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

W/O LATE V. CHANNAKRISHNAPPA R/AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN ROAD (SRI HAKKA RASTHE) BINNY LAYOUT, HAMPI NAGAR VIJAYANAGARA II STAGE BENGALURU-560104. 5. SRI SOMASHEKAR S/O LATE MUNNARASAPPA AND LATE VASUNDARAMMA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.22, THIRD FLOOR 9TH CROSS, CUBBON PET BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD C. REDDY, ADV., FOR SRI. M.V. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY, ADV., FOR R1 TO R3 SMT. RASHMI K, ADV., FOR SRI. M.K. SHIVARAJU, ADV., FOR R4 R5 SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNX-A DATED 27.03.2019, PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-23) ON IA NO.2 IN O.S.NO.2659/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE IA NO.2, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS NO.1 TO 5 & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “a) Quash the impugned order Annexure ‘A’ dated 27.03.2019, passed by the Hon’ble XXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-23) on IA.No.2 in OS.No.2659/2017 and consequently allow the IA.No.2, filed by the petitioners/defendant No.1 to 5. b) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble court as deems fit in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090

W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material on record. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. In the said suit, the petitioners are arrayed as defendant Nos.1 to 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed a detailed written statement denying averments made in the plaint by contending that there was an earlier partition on 15.09.1975, under which certain properties were allotted to the defendants’ grandmother, and that she had executed gift deeds in their favour, under which they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 5 filed an application under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 contending that the suit had not been properly valued, as the plaintiffs were not in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs opposed the said application, contending that in the plaint, they specifically pleaded that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court, under the impugned order dismissed the application.

4. It is to be noticed that the defendants have specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties which has been denied by the plaintiffs. In view of the aforesaid assertion, I am of the considered view that the trial Court is required to frame an issue on the suit valuation and payment of court fee, and the said issue is required to be tried along with the other issues in the suit. My view gains support from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt.Pushpa Hosmani and Others1. In view of the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: 1 ILR 2018 Karnataka 5095 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:39090 W.P. No.52810/2019 CNR: KAHC010456892019 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.03.2019 passed on IA.No.2 in OS.No.2659/2017 by the XXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-23) is hereby set aside. Consequently, IA.No.2 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 is disposed of by directing the trial Court to frame the issue on court fee and try the same along with the other issues. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19