OMPRAKASH Vs. SURATRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have come up in revision feeling aggrieved by order dated 1 -5 -1992 of the trial Court disposing of a preliminary issue holding the plaint liable to ad valorem court -fees under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and consequently insufficiently stamped at present.

(2.) THE suit property is an agricultural holding wherein the plaintiffs have a share along with the defendant No. 2 and others. On 4 -7 -1989, the defendant No. 2 has executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant No. 1 alienating the entire interest in the suit property. It appears that in executing the sale -deed and presenting it for registration, the defendant No. 2 has purported to act on his own behalf as also in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs - The sale -deed has been challenged by the plaintiffs on three grounds : firstly, that the defendant No. 2 was never appointed an attorney by the plaintiffs and hence could not have acted on their behalf; secondly, that pursuant to the registered agreement dated 5 -7 -1978, the interest of Prabhudayal, the predecessor -in -interest of the defendant No. 2, was agreed to be transferred to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 5000/ -, the possession whereunder was also delivered to the plaintiffs and in defiance of the said agreement the defandant No. 2 could not have sold the suit property; and, thirdly, that the plaintiffs having been in adverse possession of the suit property for over 12 years prior to the institution of the suit they had perfected their title in the suit property, leaving nothing with the defendant No. 2 to be alienated.

(3.) THE plaintiffs have valued the suit at Rs. 59000/ - but paid a fixed court -fee of Rs. 30/ - for declaration. They have also valued the suit for the purpose of injunction at Rs. 200/ - and paid court -fee of Rs. 20/ - thereon.