N. Kumar, J.

1. It is the defendant's writ petition, challenging the order dated 30.7.2013 passed in O.S. No. 14/2009 on additional issue No. 5, which was tried as preliminary issue, holding that the suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 29.1.2005 allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff, is properly valued under Section 26(c) and 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (for short "the Act").

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 14/2009 for the following reliefs:

"(a) For a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under him from disposing off or in any way conveying the suit schedule property to any third party/parties by relying the fraudulent sale deed dated 29.1.2005 or any revenue documents including RTC pertaining to the schedule property or in any way causing waste or damage to the schedule property;

(b) To declare that the sale deed dated 29.1.2015 allegedly executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of defendant without any authority whatsoever nature is null and void and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff and consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant or his men, agents, servants or any one claiming through or under him to surrender the suit schedule property within the time fixed by this Hon'ble Court failing which the same shall be done through process of Court of law;

(c) For grant of cost of this suit;

(d) For grant of such other and further reliefs in the interest of justice"

3. The defendants have contested the suit. Issues have been framed and additional issue No. 5 reads as under:

"Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction and paid sufficient court fee on the plaint?"

4. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is averred that the plaint is valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and paid the fixed court fee as per Section 26(c) and 24(d) of the Act. The Trial Court treated additional issue No. 5 as preliminary issue and posted the case for evidence on preliminary issues. The defendant was examined as DW 1 and he got marked the documents as Exs. D1 to D6, then the case was posted for arguments. After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiff is not the executant of the sale deed and he has challenged the sale deed alleged to have been executed by his father. He need not pay the court fee on the market value of the property. The suit is not one for cancellation of the sale deed and therefore, the trial court was of the view that the valuation of the suit under Section 26(c) and 24(d) of the Act, is proper. The suit need not be valued under Section 38 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The plaint averments disclose that the father of the plaintiff sold the schedule property to the defendant under registered sale deed dated 29.1.2005 for a sale consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs. On coming to know that the defendant has illegally obtained plaintiff's father's signature and created the alleged general power of attorney dated 13.4.2004 and making use of the same executed alleged sale deed in his name, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that the sale deed dated 29.1.2005 is without any authority, null and void and the same is not binding upon him and consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant, his men, servants to surrender the suit schedule property within the time to be fixed by the Court, failing which the same shall be done through due process of law. Therefore, in substance, the relief sought is for annulling the sale deed standing in the name of the defendant and for possession.

7. Section 24 (c) is now not on the statute book. Therefore, what needs to be looked into is Sect