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