Suit for easementary right is valued on relief claimed, not on market value of servient property.

The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit (O.S. No. 460/2025) seeking a declaration that 'Schedule B' property is meant for utility and the ingress/egress of the plaintiff, a mandatory injunction for the removal of illegal constructions thereon, and a permanent injunction against interference

The defendants (petitioners) contested the suit, arguing that since the market value of the property is approximately ₹1.92 Crores, the court fee must be paid under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (KCFSV Act), which would oust the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge and JMFC

The Trial Court treated the issues of court fee, jurisdiction, and maintainability as preliminary issues (Issues 3-5) and ruled in favor of the plaintiff on 10.10.2025

The petitioners challenged this order via a Writ Petition.

1. Whether a suit seeking a declaration of an easementary right and mandatory injunction is liable to be valued under Section 24(a) based on market value, or under Sections 24(d) and 26(c) of the KCFSV Act?

2. Whether the Trial Court had the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit based on the valuation adopted by the plaintiff?

The court primarily applied Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which defines an easement as a non-proprietary, incorporeal right of user over another's land for the beneficial enjoyment of one's own land

Section 24(a) applies when a declaration of title/ownership is sought, whereas Section 24(d) is a residuary clause for declarations where the subject matter is not capable of market valuation

Regarding valuation, the court interpreted Sections 24(a), 24(d), 26(c) (erroneously cited as 26(e) in parts of the judgment), and 30 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958

The High Court observed that the nature of the suit is determined by the plaint averments and the substance of the relief sought, not the defense

It noted that the plaintiff did not claim ownership or possession of the 'Schedule B' property, but merely an incorporeal right of way (easement)

The court reasoned that since an easement is not a proprietary interest, it is incapable of being valued based on the market value of the servient heritage (the land itself)

The mandatory injunction sought was deemed a facilitating relief to the easementary right, fitting within Sections 24(d) and 26

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the impact on their property value should dictate the court fee, clarifying that the legal character of the relief—not the consequential loss to the defendant—is the deciding factor

Consequently, the valuation adopted by the plaintiff was legally sound, and the trial court possessed the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the Trial Court’s order