Court Fee in Possession Suit for Agricultural Land to Be Deemed Value Under Section 7(2)(b)—Market Price Not Determinative: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea to Revalue Suit

In a notable ruling Karnataka High Court, speaking through Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, refused to interfere with the trial court’s rejection of interlocutory applications seeking revaluation of court fee in a possession suit. The Court upheld that a suit for possession of agricultural land must be valued in terms of Section 7(2)(b) read with Section 29 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and not on the basis of actual market value as contended by the defendants.

“In a suit which falls under Section 29 of the Act, the market value of the land shall be deemed to be as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 7... not the actual saleable market price,” the Court held, firmly rejecting the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff’s admission of market worth warranted higher court fee.

“Litigants Cannot Blow Hot and Cold—Defendants Who Valued Similar Suit Nominally Cannot Now Demand Market-Based Fee”: High Court Slams Inconsistent Conduct

The case involved Writ Petition No. 7386 of 2021, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of the Civil Judge & JMFC at Sringeri, which had dismissed IA Nos. 11 & 12 filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 48/2014. The underlying suit was filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) seeking possession of agricultural property measuring 15 guntas, containing a paddy field, cattle shed, and farmhouse.

The defendants urged that the plaintiffs had undervalued the suit and paid insufficient court fee, especially in light of the plaintiff’s own admission during evidence that the market value exceeded ₹10 lakhs. The defendants demanded that an additional issue be framed on court fee valuation, and that plaintiffs be directed to pay ad valorem court fee based on actual value.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court observed:

“The property in question being agricultural land falls under Section 29... and hence, the deemed valuation as per Section 7(2)(b) was correctly applied. The trial court has rightly appreciated the law and facts while dismissing the IAs.”

Crucially, the Court pointed out the inconsistent conduct of the petitioners themselves. In O.S. No. 115/2004, an earlier suit for declaration and injunction filed by the very same defendants for the same property, the suit was valued under Section 24(b), and a nominal court fee of ₹50 was paid.

The Court remarked:

“Having earlier invoked the same statutory framework and paid a minimal fee in their own suit, the defendants cannot now question the very method they themselves adopted. Such conduct undermines the integrity of their claim.”

“Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227 Not Meant for Second-Guessing Well-Reasoned Trial Court Orders”: High Court Reiterates Limited Scope for Interference

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court reaffirmed the limited nature of its jurisdiction under Article 227, observing that the trial court’s rejection of the applications was neither perverse nor legally erroneous.

“The trial court’s reasoning is rooted in a correct appreciation of the Karnataka Court Fees Act, especially Sections 7 and 29. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere.”

Thus, the High Court found no merit in the writ petition, and the challenge was dismissed in limine, affirming the trial court’s view that deemed valuation under Section 7(2)(b) is conclusive for possession suits involving agricultural land.

This judgment underscores an essential principle in civil litigation—valuation for court fee purposes must conform to statutory criteria, not fluctuating real estate prices or opposing parties’ tactical convenience. The Court made it clear that in suits governed by Section 29 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the 'market value' is a legal fiction based on prescribed multipliers and not a reference to commercial rates.

By dismissing the defendants’ plea for court fee recalculation, especially after their own past reliance on the same valuation formula, the Court ensured that procedural consistency and statutory adherence govern civil trial processes—not opportunism or selective interpretation.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025