Court-fee and valuation disputes need not be tried preliminarily unless they affect jurisdiction.

The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order in O.S. No. 2501 of 2026, which deferred consideration of court fee and valuation until after issues were framed and evidence recorded.

The suit seeks declaratory relief concerning 4 acres 29 guntas in Survey No. 172/2-B, Bilekahalli Village.

The petitioners argued that the land, following its inclusion within the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), should be valued as non-agricultural property at market value; they also asserted that the court-fee issue could be decided without evidence.

The respondents relied on Full Bench decisions concerning the determination and timing of court-fee issues.

Whether the trial court was required to determine the suit’s valuation and court fee as a preliminary issue before recording evidence on the merits.

Whether the trial court’s decision to defer that determination until after framing issues and recording evidence warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 11(2) and (5) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, read with Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, governs when questions of valuation and court fee may be tried.

In Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani, W.P. No. 8087 of 2018, the Full Bench held that “shall” in Section 11(2) and (5) is directory, not mandatory: a court may decide valuation or court-fee questions before evidence on the merits where the issue relates to its jurisdiction; otherwise, it need not decide them as preliminary issues or before evidence.

The Court also referred to the Full Bench decision in Mrs. Elfreeda Winnifred D’Souza v. Mr. Robin D’Souza, W.P. No. 40157 of 2014, on valuation and the nature of land within an urban local-body area.

The Court found that the trial court’s jurisdiction was not in dispute; the issue concerned only valuation and court fee.

Under Venkatesh R. Desai, the trial court was therefore not required to try that issue as a preliminary issue.

Although the petitioners relied on the land’s inclusion within the GBA, the record also stated that it continued to be used for agriculture and that agricultural taxes were paid.

The trial court could require evidence to determine the land’s classification for valuation purposes, and its decision to defer the issue was consistent with the Full Bench ruling.

The Court nevertheless found some justification in the petitioners’ submission that Issue No. 4, concerning court fee, required recasting, and granted them liberty to apply to the trial court for that purpose.