Both these petitions have arisen out of a common order dated 29.4.201 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli on I.A.5 and 6 in O.S.623/2011.

2. I.A.5 filed by defendant Nos.3 and 4 was one under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC requesting the Court to reject the plaint on the ground of nonpayment of sufficient court fee and I.A.6 was one filed under Order 13 Rule 8 of CPC read with Section 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act requesting the Court to impound the registered sale deed dated 29.7.2005 relied upon by the plaintiff and refer the same to the Deputy Commissioner to collect requisite stamp duty and penalty.

3. Both these applications have been allowed in part and the operative portion reads as follows:

ORDER

I.A.No.5 filed by the defendants No.3 and 4 u/o 7 Rule 11(b) R/w Sec. 151 of COC dated 5.9.2014 allowedinpart.

The plaintiff is directed to value the suit in respect of prayer (a) U/Sec 24(b) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, fee shall be computed on onehalf of the market value of property i.e., for Rs.40,00,000/within next date of hearing. Otherwise, the plaint will be rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(b) of CPC.

I.A.No.6 filed by the defendants No.3 and 4 u/o 13 Rule 8 of CPC Section 151 of CPC and Sec. 33 of Karnataka Stamp Act dated 5.9.2014 is hereby allowed.

The plaintiff is directed to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.37,386/plus 10 times penalty of Rs.3,73,860/totally Rs.4,11,246/in respect of registered sale deed dated 25.4.2005 executed by defendant No.1Smt.Akkayamma and her family members through their power or attorney holderSri.R.Venkatesh s/o M.V.Ramanna in favour of plaintiff.

The office is directed to collect the duty and penalty as stated above. Thereafter, as per Sec.37 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, send an authenticate copy of the registered sale deed dated 25.5.2005 to the District Registrar, Bengaluru, together with certificate and the amount collected as a duty and penalty.

For payment of duty and penalty and to pay additional court fee on the market value of the suit schedule property.

Call on 23.7.2015.

4. Plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order dated 29.4.2015 passed in O.S.623/2011 on I.A.5 and 6, has preferred the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Sole plaintiff of the said suit is the petitioner herein and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein.

6. The facts leading to filing of these petitions are as follows:

Plaintiff has filed a suit for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. He is stated to be in lawful possession of one acre of agricultural land in Sy.No.107/2 of Kannamangala Village Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and this is stated to be the southern portion of Sy.No.107/2 and he is stated to have purchased the suit schedule property from Smt.Akkamma, defendant No.1, who is stated to have conveyed the suit schedule property of one acre in his favour for a sum of Rs.1 Lakh by executing a sale deed dated 25.4.2005 which was registered on 29.7.2005 vide document No.2090/0506 along with her children. It is his case that Akkamma and her children have delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and since then he is stated to be in lawful possession of the property. Since defendants attempted to deny his title and possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of a false documents i.e., the alleged sale dated 2.7.2005 allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2, he was left with no other option but to file a suit for declaration of title and injunction.

7. The case of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 is that defendant No.2 had purchased the entire extent of land measuring 2 acres 38 guntas in Sy.No.107/2 from Akkammadefendant No.1 and her children through registered sale deed dated 2.7.2005 and it is their further case that they have purchased the entire suit schedule property in Sy.No.107/2 for consideration of Rs.24 Lakhs from defendant No. 2. It is their cas