1. Defendant Nos.1 and 7 have filed the present writ petition against the order dated 5th December, 2013 made in O.S.No.1942/2009 on Preliminary Issue No.9 holding that the defendants have failed to prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of payment of Court fee as the value of the property is more than Rs.4 Crores as stated in the written statement.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed suit for declaration of Sale Deed dated 26.8.2005 executed in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20 in respect of the suit schedule property registered on 26.8.2005 in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore as null and void and not binding on them; to cancel the Khata effected in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20 vide order dated 4.11.2006 by the 21st defendant and also subsequent Khatas issued in different numbers in respect of the schedule property; consequently to grant permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 19 and 20 from alienating, encumbering or creating any changes on the suit schedule property contending that they are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property right from 1957; they have paid the taxes to the concerned authority and they still are continuing to pay the bills of water, electricity and telephone standing in the name of K.L. Venugopal , late Sri K.C. Lakshmaiah and some of the past tenants of late Sri K.L. Venugopal which clearly establish the fact that defendant Nos. 1 to 17 have no legal right whatsoever in respect of the schedule property. They further contended that RFA No.526/1998 is pending before this Court and the schedule is the subject matter of suit - O.S.No.415/1980 and the said appeal is pending consideration wherein defendant Nos. 1 to 17 colluded and conspired with defendant Nos. 19 and 20 and have executed the Sale Deed dated 26.8.2005 conveying the schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 19 and 20. The said Sale Deed is void and the same is not binding on them, who are the wife and children of late Sri K.L. Venugopal, etc., and sought for the relief as prayed for.

3. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that the court fee paid is highly insufficient and the plaintiffs cannot value the property for a paltry sum. The suit being not properly valued and the court fee paid being insufficient, the question of court fee has to be decided as a preliminary issue under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. They have further contended that the defendant Nos. 19 and 20 have purchased the schedule property for a sum of Rs.2,15,00,000/- and the market value of the property as on the date of filing of the written statement was more than Rupees Four Crores, the suit being for cancellation of Sale Deed, the suit cannot be proceeded unless proper court fee is collected. They further contended that the declaration sought by the plaintiffs that the Sale Deed dated 26.8.2005 is not binding and barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, etc., and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. In view of the rival contentions urged, the trial Court framed as many as 17 issues on 3.3.2011 and issue No.9 was heard as a preliminary issue i.e., “Whether defendant Nos. 1 to 3 prove that the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of payment of court fee as the value of the property is more than Rupees Four Crores as contended in the written statement”?

5. The plaintiffs have not examined any of the witness but defendant Nos. 19 and 20 have examined one witness as D.W.1 and reiterated the averments made in the written statement.

6. The trial Court considering the application and the entire material on record, recorded a finding that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to prove issue No.9 and accordingly, held that issue in negative. It also held that the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is suff