The main legal point established is that the plaintiff, through the power of attorney holder, is considered a party to the sale deed, and the proper court fee as per the valuation of the sale deed should be affixed.

CAV ORDER

1. The petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 24-08- 2021 passed by the learned XIIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, District Raipur in Civil Suit No. 149-A/2021 by which the learned trial Court though rejected the application file under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. but has directed the plaintiff/petitioner to affix the proper court fees on the valuation as mentioned in the sale deed.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the plaintiff has filed civil suit for declaring the sale deed dated 16-2-2021 as without jurisdiction, illegal and void and not binding upon the plaintiff with regard to property bearing Khasra No 644/462, area 560 sq.ft and Khasra No 644/663 area 50 sq.ft., total 610 area 610 sq.ft situated at Ward No. 68, Madhavrao Sapre Ward, presently Ward No. 69, Mouja Raipura, Patwari Halka No. 104/57, R.N.M, Raipur-1, Tahsil and District Raipur wherein a house in the ground and first floor have been constructed. It has been contended in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendants are known to each other. The plaintiff has taken some financial assistance by way of loan from defendant No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs on 07.07.2019 and 06.12.2019 Rs. 10 lacs through cheque, as such, he has received Rs. 20 lacs.

3. It has also been contended that the plaintiff by profession is an Advocate and when he was searching some document in the Registration Office, Raipur in connection with his professional work, it has come to his knowledge that on 16-2-2021 without intimation to the plaintiff, the suit property has been sold by him for sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- on 7-9-2019 and on 6-12-2019 Rs.10,00.000/-, thus total Rs.20,00,000/- which has been purchased by the defendant No.2. As such, the sale deed is without jurisdiction. It is also case of the plaintiff that the defendants with collusion of Deputy Registrar, executed the sale deed and also recorded their names in the revenue records, as such, the sale deed dated 16-2-2021 is void ab initio and without jurisdiction, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff.

4. The defendants have not filed their written statements, but they have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC contending that though the plaintiff has pleaded that he has executed unregistered agreement in favour of the defendant No. 1 but from bare perusal of the document, it is quite vivid that it is a registered document and the plaintiff has not challenged the validity of the said agreement. It is also case of the defendant that the plaintiff has also executed registered power of attorney but has not challenged the validity of the power of attorney and when the power of attorney is in existence and the sale deed has been executed as per the power of attorney as such, the relief sought by the plaintiff is consequence relief of declaration of registered agreement, power of attorney and registered sale deed, as such, the suit for declaration is not maintainable. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has not affixed the proper court fees as the registered power of attorney is in existence and the in the present suit, he has not challenged the same. It has been contended that the plaintiff is party to the sale in view of the registered power of attorney, as such, the proper court fee on sale consideration of Rs. 20 lac should be affixed, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

5. The plaintiff has filed reply to the application contending that the defendants by committing fraud with the plaintiff utilising the power of attorney have executed the sale deed on 16-2-2021 which is without jurisdiction, illegal, void and is not binding upon the plaintiff, therefore, declaration must be stopped and he has properly valued the suit.

6. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 24.08.2021 has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. but directed the petitioner to de