Karnataka HC Upholds Refusal To Transfer Dharwad Suit, Citing Pre-Suit Sale Agreement Showing Property Worth Over ₹15 Lakh

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s request to transfer the suit to the jurisdictional court under the High Court circular.

The court held

The Court held that the trial court had properly relied on Ex.P16 in assessing the property’s value and rejecting the transfer request.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition and left the trial court’s order undisturbed.

01Facts

The petitioner, plaintiff in O.S. No. 354/2022, sought a declaration and injunction. He valued the suit at ₹10,80,000.

Relying on a Karnataka High Court circular dated 1 September 2026 and a District Court memorandum dated 2 September 2026, he asked the trial court to transfer the suit to the jurisdictional court, contending that the valuation fell within the transfer threshold.

¶ 6

The trial court rejected the request, finding from Ex.P16—a registered agreement of sale dated 9 May 2022—that the property’s value exceeded ₹15,00,000 as of the suit-filing date.

¶ 7

The plaintiff challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s request to transfer the suit to the jurisdictional court under the High Court circular.

¶ 1–2, 6

ii.2. Whether the suit’s valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction was to be assessed by reference to the plaintiff’s stated valuation or the value reflected in Ex.P16 as of the date of filing.

¶ 7–8

03Law Applied

The Court applied the principle that suit valuation for pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined as of the date of filing of the suit.

¶ 4, 7–8

Under the High Court circular, as described by the trial court, cases involving property valued at ₹15,00,000 or below were to be transferred to the jurisdictional court.

¶ 7

The Court also distinguished guidance value used for stamp-duty purposes from evidence of the property’s actual market value.

¶ 4

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The plaintiff’s valuation of ₹10,80,000 was based on guidance value, but the Court accepted the trial court’s finding that Ex.P16, which pre-dated the suit, reflected an actual market value exceeding ₹15,00,000.

¶ 7–8

Because the relevant valuation was the value as of the date of filing, the plaintiff’s stated figure did not establish that the case fell within the circular’s transfer threshold. The Court therefore found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s decision to retain the suit.

¶ 8