1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the trial Court allowing the application under Order 7 rule 11, CPC calling upon the plaintiff to pay the ad valorem court-fees on the valuation of the suit done at Rs.36,98,000/-.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass.

3. Plaintiff has filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit land in question with further declaration that the sale deed dated 7.6.2012, executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant No.2, is void, illegal and ineffective, as well as, permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

4. Plaint allegations are to the effect that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are known to each other and mutual trust and faith existed between them. Defendant No.1 taking advantage of such relationship, fraudulently, mischievously and with oblique motive, got the signatures of the plaintiff on a blank paper under the pretext of getting prepared a credit card for him, but got prepared a general power of attorney purported to be executed in his favour by the plantiff and on the strength whereof, executed the sale deed in favour of his wife-defendant No.2 showing the sale consideration of Rs.36,98,000/- and the same was got registered on 7.6.2012 at S.No.556 in the office of Deputy Registrar, Shivpuri. Plaintiff further contends that he had never permitted defendant No.1 to execute the aforesaid sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and the sale deed has been executed fraudulently.

5. Defendants filed an application under Order 7 rule 11, CPC, inter alia contending that a careful perusal of the plaint allegations unequivocally and unambiguously suggest that the sale deed dated 7.6.2012 has been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 9.5.2012. Undisputedly, the power of attorney bears the signatures of planitff, whereunder defendant No.1 is authorized to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and, accordingly, the sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.2. However, it is alleged that the power of attorney is prepared fraudulently without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, hence sale deed in question is void, illegal and ineffective. It is contended that law is well settled to the effect that there is a presumption that registered document is a validly executed document. The onus of proof would be on the person who disputes the existence of such document and, therefore, is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. As such, it is a question of fact to be determined by the trial Court on the evidence led by the parties. Under such circumstances, the registered sale deed executed with the authority of registered power of attorney cannot be said to be a void document and at the most can be a voidable document. There shall be presumption that plaintiff has executed the sale deed, hence the plaintiff is required to pay ad valorem court-fee on the valuation done in the suit, if he wants to avoid the sale deed.

6. Per contra plaintiff has contended that since he is not a party to the sale deed, hence, to seek declaration that the sale deed is void, he is only required to pay fixed court-fee.

7. The trial Court has considered the aforesaid contentions at length and concluded that the registered sale deed in question, which is alleged to have been executed on the strength of registered power of attorney fraudulently, is a voidable document and, therefore, ad valorem court-fee is required to be paid to avoid the sale deed. Moreover, the plaintiff himself has valued the suit at Rs.36,98,000/-, therefore the trial Court called upon the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee under section 7(iv)(c) of the court-fees Act, 1870 (for short “the Act”) on the valuation of the suit. Being ag