SHRI BALASAHEB vs SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O GUNDU SHARABIDRI

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 108632 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SHRI BALASAHEB S/O PARASHURAM SHEDAKE
AGE. 78 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT,
R/O. LAXMISHINGANKERE ROAD, DHARWAD-580007.
…PETITIONER


(BY SRI. Y.R. JOGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1. SHRI. KALLAPPA S/O GUNDU SHARABIDRI
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT
R/O: KURABAR ONI, NOW AT SUGAR FACTORY LINE ROAD,
BELLADABAGEWADI, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.


2. SMT. KAMAL W/O SADASHIV SHETAKE
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MULLA ONI, RAYABAGA,
TQ: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.


3. SHRI. RAJARAM S/O GUNDU SHARABIDRI URF SHARABIDRE
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR SUGAR FACTORY
BELLADABAGEWADI,
R/O: KURUBAR ONI, BELLADABAGEWADI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

THE TAHASHILDAR DHARWAD,
TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD,

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD,
TALUK AND DISTRICT. DHARWAD.


4. RAVI S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR ARAGANNAVAR
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GARAG, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD – 580105.


5. SAIYADDADASAB S/O KHALADAR PEERAJADE
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,







Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad bench


-Deleted As Per Court Order

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026


R/O: GARAG, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD – 580105.


6. SACHIN S/O KALLAPPA SHAHARABIDRE
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O: HASSAN, TQ. & DIST: HASSAN – 573201.


7. ANASUYYA W/O KALLAPPA SHAHARABIDRE
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELLAD BAGEWADI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591305.

8. PRAVEEN S/O RAJARAM SHAHARABIDRE
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: BELLAD BAGEWADI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591305.


9. PRATHAMESH S/O RAJARAM SHAHARABIDRE
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: BELLAD BAGEWADI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 5913.

10.NIKHITA W/O SIDDAPPA GODAKE
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELLAD BAGEWADI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591305.

11.CHAYA W/O RAJU SHARABIDRE
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BELLAD BAGEWADI,
TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591305.

12.PRASHANT S/O SADASHIV SHETAKE
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MULLA ONI, RAYABAG,
TQ: RAYABAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591317.

13.VITTAL S/O KALLAPPA KANTENNAVAR
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: GARAG, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD – 580105.

14.SHRI. ANWARHUSEN S/O MOHAMMAD GOUS MUJAWAR
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: MALAPUR, DHARWAD.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026


15.SHRI. SHRISHAIL S/O MALLESHAPPA MALAPUR
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: NEAR BUS STAND, GARAG, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD.

16.SMT. ASMA W/O SAYADDADASAB PEERJADE
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: GARAG, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD.

17.SHRI. JAINULABDIN S/O KHALANDAR PEERJADE
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: GARAG, TQ. & DIST: DHARWAD.

18.SHRI. VINAYAKA S/O KALLAPPA SHARABIDRE
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: POLICE,
R/O: BELLADABAGEWADI, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
NOW AT HASSAN, TQ. & DIST: HASSAN.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.G. GADAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5;
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R16)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28/09/2026 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD IN O.S NO.354/2022 ON MEMO
DATED 07/09/2026 AND I.A NO. 27 FILED U/SEC. 151 OF CPC AS
PER ANNEXURE-K BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.354/2022 filed for
relief of declaration and injunction pending on the file of
Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad is before this
Court being aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2026 in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026


terms of which a memo dated 07.09.2026 at Annexure-J
filed by the petitioner has been rejected.


2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that
though document at Ex.P16 had come into existence prior
to filing of the suit, the same was not within the knowledge
of the plaintiff. Therefore the valuation made by the
plaintiff was to be considered by the trial Court. If done so
the suit is required to be transferred to the Civil Judge,
Junior Division, in terms of the circular issued by the
Registry of this Court.


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to a
document at Page No.92 of the writ petition as well as the
valuation slip produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition
to contend that as on the date of filing of the suit, the
valuation of the property for the purpose of registration
was the one which was given in the valuation slip and the
trial Court ought not to have therefore relied upon Ex.P16
to retain the matter rejecting the memo of the petitioner.


- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026



4. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
defendant on the other hand submits that the trial Court
has rightly taken note of the fact and the legal
requirement that the valuation of the suit has to be as on
the date of filing of the suit and though the plaintiff has
valued the suit at Rs.10,80,000/-, Ex.P16 which has come
into existence admittedly prior to filing of the suit, value is
more than Rs.15,00,000/-. He further submits that the
reliance placed on by the learned counsel for the petitioner
onto page No.92 of the writ petition is only a guidance
value for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and not
the actual market value of the property. That the actual
market of the property has to be ascertained from the
transactions that have been registered before the Sub-
Registrar office and the average of the highest transactions
done has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, he
submits that the reliance placed on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner on the guidance value is of no avail.
Hence seeks for dismissal of the petition.


5. Heard and perused the records.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026




6. The memo dated 07.09.2026 filed by plaintiff reads as
under:
MEMO
“ The advocate for the plaintiff submits memo as
under:
That the plaintiff filed this suit for a relief of
declaration and the suit is valued for Rs.10,80,000/-. As per
the circular issued by the High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru, dated: 01-09-2026 and official memorandum
dated 02-09-2026, issued by the office of the Principal
District and Sessions Court Dharwad, as “All the pending
cases covered by the amendment shall transferred to the
respective Jurisdictional Courts immediate effect”. Hence
this case may kindly be transferred to concerned
Jurisdictional Court Dharwad.
Hence this Memo.”


Dharwad Sd/-
07/09/2026 (V.B. Ajagond)

Advocate for the plaintiff


7. The trial Court in the impugned order at paragraphs 12
and 13 has held as under:
“ 1 2. It is the duty of the Court to consider the
valuation as o the date of filing of the suit and prior to filing
of the suit. The plaintiff has made the value of the suit
property for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction for Rs.
10,80,000/-. The plaintiff has not clarified and given
explanation what was the base for him for valuing the suit
property for Rs. 10,80,000/ only. On the basis of document
furnished by the plaintiff himself and more particularly
Ex.P16, the valuation of the suit property is more than
Rs.15,00,000/- as on the date of filing of the suit. In spite of
that, the plaintiff has not properly valued the suit property
for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and Court fee.
Basing on the documents relied by the plaintiff himself. I am
of the opinion that the valuation of the suit property is more

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026


than Rs. 15,00,000/-as on the date of filing of the suit. The
Circular issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka i.e.,
R.J. No. 83/2026 High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru dated
01-09/2026 is crystal clear that, if the valuation of property
is Rs. 15,00,000/- and below same has to be transferred to
the jurisdictional Court. But in the present case on hand,
valuation of the suit property prior to the filing of the suit
and as on the date of filing of the suit is more than
Rs.15,00,000/-. The Ex.P16 registered document itself is
very much clear.

13. The plaintiff earlier filed I.A No. 26 U/o 16 Rules 1
and 1(3) R/w Section 151 of CPC was rejected by this Court,
aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff has filed C.R.P
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Now, the
plaintiff has filed the memo relying wrong valuation made by
him and filed memo requesting to transfer this case.
Considering all these facts and relying the Ex.P16 registered
agreement of sale dated 09/05/2022, I am of the opinion
that the this Court is having pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain this case. Accordingly, I answered point No.1 in
Negative and point No.2 and 3 in the affirmative. ”



8. As noted above at paragraph 12, the trial Court has taken
into consideration of the requirement of considering the
question of valuation of the property as prior to and as on
the date of filing of the suit. It may be that the plaintiff has
valued the suit at Rs.10,80,000/- based on the guidance
value. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
respondent, the actual market value is reflected in Ex.P16
which as found by the trial Court is in excess of
Rs.15,00,000/-. Ex.P16 is admitted prior to the date of

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17662
WP No. 108632 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020186932026


filing of the suit. Therefore, this Court do not see any
irregularity or illegality in the order passed. Petition
accordingly dismissed .




Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE




SBN
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11