- (1.) Cm No.4768-CII of 2016 The application allowed as prayed for. Annexures P5 and P6 are taken on record. Civil Revision Nos.5798 of 2012 and 4970 of 2015 1. Both the civil revisions are connected and they address the same issue. They are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The petitions are at the instance of the defendants who have objected to the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs in the suit for declaration in relation to the property that was said to have been transferred by defendants 4 and 5 purporting to act as power of attorney for the plaintiffs and selling the property to defendants 1 to
(3.) The plaintiffs have contended that the power of attorney executed on 02.11.2010 was cancelled through a registered deed of cancellation dated 12.02.2011 and that therefore the sale deed executed by the power of attorney to the defendants 1 to 3 on 14.10.2011 is not valid and binding. The suit has been instituted on 10.02.2012 for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of property. 3. Admittedly, on the date of the agreement of sale with defendants 1 to 3, the entire sale consideration had been received by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have, however, contended that the defendants 4 and 5 had no power to sell and, therefore, the sale being not valid, the plaintiffs must be construed to be still the owners of the property. There is no prayer for recovery of possession and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to adopt a notional valuation and pay the fixed court fee. The defendants have contended in their application for rejection of plaint that the power of attorney was itself coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. The plaintiffs are to be therefore regarded as parties in the sale deed executed on 14.10.2011 and if a declaratory action is made, the suit has to be valued on the consideration set forth in the sale deed as market valuation and pay ad valorem court fee.;