P GOVINDAIAH Vs. B SHIVA SHANKARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before this Court was the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.265/1995 which was for declaration that the General Power of Attorney in question was a forged one and the sale deeds executed on the strength of the said General Power of Attorney is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties.

(2.) The Trial Court rejected the relief of declaration in respect of Item Nos. 1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. It decreed the suit in respect of Item No.2 by holding that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the said item and the sale deed executed by the first defendant in respect of the said item No.2 was not binding on the plaintiff and the permanent injunction relief was also granted. However, the Trial Court also held that the plaintiff has to value the relief as provided under Sec. 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short K.C.F. & S.V. Act) and pay the Court fee on half of the market value of the properties within 15 days, failing which, the suit will stand dismissed. It was also made clear that the decree will have to be drawn only after the fresh valuation slip is filed. The plaintiff questioned the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court by preferring an appeal before the lower Appellate Court in RA.No.104/ 2002. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court while allowing the appeal set aside the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff and also directed the appellant herein to file a fresh valuation slip by valuing the suit for the second relief sought and directed the appellant to file the valuation slip before the Trial Court and there after wards was to consider as to whether it had the jurisdiction to try the suit and if it upholds that it has jurisdiction, then the parties be permitted to adduce their evidence as additional evidence and thereafterwards to decide the case. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the lower Appellate Court this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.

(3.) I have heard Sri P. Krishnappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records of this case.