Case Note & Summary
This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajapuram, in O.S. No. 460/2025 (earlier O.S. No. 879/2021). The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration that Schedule B property was meant for utility purposes and for ingress and egress, a mandatory injunction to remove constructions alleged to be illegal, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the way. The defendants-petitioners raised preliminary objections regarding court fee, valuation, pecuniary jurisdiction, and maintainability. Issues 3 to 5 were framed: whether the court fee paid and valuation made by the plaintiff was proper, whether the court had pecuniary jurisdiction, and whether the suit was maintainable. The trial court held all three issues in favour of the plaintiff. It observed that the plaintiff was not seeking declaration of title but only an easementary right-of-way over the Schedule B property, based on a gift deed allegedly executed by his father. Accordingly, valuation for court fee and jurisdiction was to be based on the relief claimed and not on the market value, and court fee was properly paid under Sections 24(d), 26(a), and 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The defendants' assertion that the property had a high market value and that court fee must be computed under Section 24(a) was rejected. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present writ petition contending that the trial court failed to consider documents showing their absolute ownership and that no internal road existed, and that the order was perverse and contrary to settled law. They relied on judgments including U. Sadananda Udupa vs. Smt. T. Kusuma Shedthi, Vikram Ravi Menezes vs. Victor Goveas, and Shri Sunil and Others vs. M/s. Hotel Arpan and Others to argue that valuation must be on market value when title is disputed. The High Court heard the matter on 09.06.2026 and reserved judgment. The final order, pronounced on 20.07.2026, was not fully extracted in the provided text, so the final decision and reasoning of the High Court are not available.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Fees and Valuation - In a suit for declaration of easementary right-of-way, court fee is payable under Sections 24(d), 26(a), and 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, not on the market value of the property under Section 24(a) - The plaintiff did not seek declaration of title but claimed easementary right based on a gift deed; the trial court held that valuation must be based on the relief claimed, and the court fee was properly computed, rejecting defendants' objection under Section 24(a) (Paras 3-4). B) Civil Procedure - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Where court fee is properly valued under the special provisions for easementary suits, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court is determined by such valuation and not by the market value of the property - The trial court found that the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was legally sound, and the defendants' objection regarding pecuniary jurisdiction based on market value was unsustainable (Paras 3-4). C) Civil Procedure - Maintainability - A suit for declaration of easementary right-of-way, along with mandatory and permanent injunction, is maintainable when the plaintiff asserts a right over the property without claiming title - The trial court observed that the plaintiff claimed only an easementary right-of-way, not ownership, and therefore the suit was maintainable; the High Court's writ petition against this finding was heard and reserved but the final outcome was not extracted (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in holding that the suit is maintainable, court fee properly valued, and that it had pecuniary jurisdiction, in a suit for declaration of easementary right-of-way, mandatory injunction, and permanent injunction
Law Points
- Court fee in easementary right suit computed under Sections 24(d)
- 26(a)
- 30 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act
- not based on market value under Section 24(a)
- valuation for jurisdiction follows relief claimed
- not market value
- suit for declaration of easementary right without title claim is maintainable
