IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiffs not party to sale deed entitled to value suit under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees Act for declaration that sale deed is not binding.

ORDER :

Mrs. M.G. Uma, J. - Defendant No.1 in O.S.826/2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), is impugning the order dated 19.10.2017 passed on preliminary issue No.4 holding that the suit of the plaintiffs is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction.

2. Heard Sri. Vijaya Krihna Bhat M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M. Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed is fraudulent one, not binding on the plaintiffs and for a direction to the Sub Registrar to delete the entry with regard to the said sale deed and further for permanent injunction. In fact, the Court fee that is required to be paid is under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act ('the Act' for short), taking into consideration the market value of the property in question. But the plaintiffs valued it under Section 24(d) of the Act for declaration that the sale deed is not binding on them and valued the permanent injunction separately under Section 24(c) of the Act. But they have not paid any Court fee to seek direction to the Sub Registrar to delete the entry with regard to the sale deed. Under such circumstances, the trial Court committed an error in answering preliminary issue No.4 in the affirmative. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions in V.Prabhakar v. K. Raja & Ors., 2013 (1) KCCR 570 and Vikram Ravi Meneze v. Victor Goveas, 2015 (3) KCCR 2806 in support of his contention that the plaint should have been valued under Section 38 of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the petition submitted that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed in question is a fraudulent one executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 and therefore, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. The relief of permanent injunction is separately sought and is separately valued. The plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed in question. Under such circumstances, they are not required to seek cancellation of the sale deed. Under such circumstances, valuation of the suit under Section 24(d) of the Act is just and proper.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh & Ors., 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 215 in support of his contention that since the plaintiffs' suit is only to declare that the sale deed in question is not binding on their right, they are not required to value the suit either under Section 24(b) or under Section 38 of the Act. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

7. The admitted facts of the case are that the respondents as plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.826/2012 for declaration that the sale deed is fraudulent document and not binding on the plaintiffs. They also sought for permanent injunction which is separately valuable. The plaintiffs have also sought for a direction to the Sub registrar to delete the entry with regard to the sale deed.

8. The decisions relied on by both the parties referred to above make the position of law very clear that when a party seeking declaration that the document is not binding on him and when he is not a party to the document, he is entitled to value the suit under Section 24(d) of the Act. But on the other hand, if the plaintiff is a party or if the plaintiff is seeking right under the parties to the document, he is required to seek setting aside or annulment of the document and setting aside the same by valuing it under Section 38 of the Act. This position of law is not disputed by both learned counsel.

9. It is not in dispute that the plain