Karnataka High Court
CRP/585/2026 of SMT. NAGAMMA C Vs SMT. MANJULA REDDY on 12 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010450982026 NC: 2026:KHC:42927 CRP No. 585 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.585 OF 2026 (IO) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGAMMA C W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.585 OF 2026 (IO)
BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAMMA C
W/O LATE SATYANARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.09, HALANAYAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. R. RAVIPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. MANJULA REDDY
W/O Y. C. REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1010, 26TH MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041
2.
SRI. J. PRATHAP REDDY,
S/O J. THIMMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
NO.75, 14TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN,
HSR LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR,
BENGALURU - 560 101.
3.
SRI. N.VIVEKANANDA REDDY,
S/O LATE VENKATARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.309, PINE B2,
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
PRESTIGE GREEN WOODS,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 093.
4.
SRI. Y.C. SANDEEP REDDY,
S/O Y.C. RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1010, 26TH MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
5.
SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O NARAYANAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115, 12TH CROSS,
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD, SARAKKI,
J.P.NAGARA 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
6.
SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI,
D/O NARAYANAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
@ H.R.NARAYANA REDDY,
W/O MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, 22ND MAIN,
NAGARAJU GARDEN,
J.P. NAGARA 5TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
7.
SMT. CHAYADEVI,
GRAND-DAUGHTER OF LATE NARAYANAPPA,
D/O MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT GUNDUMGERE,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
8.
SMT. MEENA,
D/O NARAYANAIAH @ NARAYANAPPA,
W/O CHIKKA MUNIREDDY,
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115,
PATELAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
12TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
9.
SRI. SHANTHARAJU,
GRANDSON OF LATE NARAYANAIAH
@ NARAYANAPPA,
S/O CHIKKA MUNIREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115,
PATELAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
12TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
10.
SMT. MANJULA @ MANJU,
D/O LATE NARAYANAIAH
@ NARAYANAPPA,
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.71, 13TH CROSS,
15TH MAIN, SARAKKI AGRAHARA,
J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
11.
SRI. KRISHNA
GRANDSON OF LATE NARAYANAIAH
@ NARAYANAPPA,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.71, 13TH CROSS,
15TH MAIN, SARAKKI AGRAHARA,
J.P. NAGAR 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
12.
SMT. RANI,
GRANDSON OF LATE NARAYANAIAH @
NARAYANAPPA,
W/O M.V. SHIVAPRAKASH,
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.146, B BLOCK,
COTTON-PET, BENGALURU - 560 002.
13.
THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR
BASAVANAGUDI (SARJAPURA),
BENGALURU - 560 004.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. G. BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. NAGARAJ G.H., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R4 ([CP
NO.13838/2026])
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
01.06.2026, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC, ANEKAL, IN O.S NO.1654/2024 ON IA NO.VI
FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.9 UNDER ORDER VII RULE
11(b), (c) AND (d) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.6 in O.S.No.1654/2024 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, the petitioner/defendant No.9 is before this Court.
2. The respondents herein have filed a suit for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 26.04.2022 is void and also sought for permanent injunction. In that suit, I.A.No.6 was
HC-KAR
filed under Order VII Rule 11(b), (c) & (D) read with Section 151 CPC. That came to be dismissed by order impugned.
3. While dismissing the application, the trial Court observed that according to defendant No. 9 Court Fees paid is insufficient. Plaintiffs are not parties to the Sale Deed, which they have questioned. When plaintiffs are not parties to the Sale Deed, it is not necessary for plaintiffs to pay Court Fees on the consideration fixed in the Sale Deed. As per the valuation slip, the suit is properly valued under Sections 24(d) and 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuations Act. On the basis of insufficient Court Fees, the plaint cannot be rejected. If Court felt that the Court Fees paid were insufficient, Court may direct the parties to pay the Court Fees, even at the time of judgment. At this stage, no grounds are made out to reject the plaint. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff seeks cancellation of the Sale Deed and has not sought the relief that it is not binding on him. Accordingly, the court fee paid is invalid. Further, the property is non-agricultural land. The Court Fee ought to have
HC-KAR
been paid as per the same. All these aspects were not considered by the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the trial Court has rightly considered all these aspects and rightly observed that non-payment of the correct Court Fees is not a ground for rejecting the plaint. The trial Court can pass orders and direct the plaintiff to pay the Court Fees. It is submitted that this cannot be the ground for rejecting the plaint, and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The petitioner contends that the suit is not properly valued and that sufficient Court Fees have not been paid. The Court observed that this is not a ground for rejection of the plaint. Unfortunately, the trial Court made certain findings regarding the Court Fees, and the Court Fees paid by the plaintiffs/respondents herein are correct. Ultimately, the conclusion that is arrived at by the trial Court is correct. However, certain findings cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, directing the trial Court to frame an issue with regard to the suit valuation and the Court Fees paid is correct or not?
ii. The trial Court has to conduct an independent inquiry with regard to the Court Fees, uninfluenced by any of these observations in the impugned order.
iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68