SUBBAMMA Vs. DR. V. KANAKARAJ GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff 1-Subbamma W/o. late D.V. Munivenkatappa and two others-the legal representatives (sons) of late D.V. Munivenkatappa, who is said to have died on 13-10-1993, have filed this writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the defendant-Dr. V. Kanakaraj Gupta S/o. P.S. Venkatesha Setty, Geetha K. Gupta, W/o P S. Venkatesha Setty and Madhavaswamy S/o. late Dr. D. Gopala Krishna Rao, aggrieved by the order dated 29-7-2016 by which the learned Trial Court has decided the Issue No. 5 against the plaintiffs and has directed the plaintiffs to deposit the Court Fees on the sale consideration of Rs. 12,38,000.00 of sale deed dated 25-9-2006 executed by the defendant 1-Dr. V. Kanakaraj Gupta as Power of Attorney holder of late D.V. Munivenkatappa in favour of defendant 3-Madhavaswamy S/o late Dr. D. Gopala Krishna Rao.

(2.) The learned Trial Court has given the following reasons in the impugned order for payment of ad valorem Court fees:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners-Mr. Virupakshaiah P.H, relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh and Others, (2010)12 SCC 112 and other judgments referred to by the learned Trial Court has submitted before this Court that the sale deed in question of which the cancellation was sought by the plaintiffs/petitioners could not bind them which was executed by the power of attorney holder much after the death of late D.V. Munivenkatappa, who died on 13-10-1993 whereas the sale deed in question was executed by the said Power of Attorney holder-defendant 1-Dr. V. Kanakaraj Gupta on 25-9-2006 and since the plaintiffs only claimed declaration for treating the said sale deed as non est and not binding upon the plaintiffs, payment of Court fee on the sale consideration was not payable ad valorem and therefore, the Trial Court erred in passing in the impugned order.