- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.11.2012 of learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Udaipur, in a suit filed by idol of Shri Keshariya Nath Bhagwan, in respect of disputed shop, which according to plaintiffs/ petitioners, was initially mortgaged by one Sh. Ratan Chand ('Yati') Chela Sh. Guru Ramlal in 'Vikram Samvat' year 1958 on '??? ?? ???' for L 351/- to one Sh. Nandlal S/o Chaturbhuj Joshi, the predecessor in title of present defendants No.2 to 5, seeking declaration in the suit that the sale-deed executed by the defendants No. 2, 3 and 5, namely, Manehdra Nath Purohit S/o Ajay Nath Purohit and others, in favour of defendant No.1, namely, Niranjan Lal Sahu S/o Kishan Lal Sahu, be declared illegal and void since the aforesaid 'Yati' (Sh. Ratan Chand) in the capacity of trustee of the idol, could not mortgage the said property, which in the course of time, was claimed to be a joint family property of the private defendants No.2 to 5, and upon a partition suit filed in respect of said suit property also, the shop in question, situated at Mandi, Udaipur, came to be sold by the defendants No. 2 to 5 in favour of defendant No.1.
(2.) The petitioners/plaintiffs (Trust), claimed that the court fees in respect of suit shop filed by them vide para 16 of the plaint, would be 1/5th of the market value of the suit property in question, which according to the plaint, was fixed at L 21 lacs and 1/5th thereof will L 4,20,000/-, the plaintiffs, however, paid the fixed court fees of L 200/- as stipulated in Section 27 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1961') along with L 400/- court fees for injunction against the defendants.
(3.) The learned trial court has, however, vide the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 held that Section 27 of the Act of 1961 would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since none of the defendants shown in the plaint, is admittedly a trustee of the Trust and, therefore, Section 27 of the Act of 1961 would not be applicable and hence, the plaintiff-Trust has to pay full court fees at the market value of suit shop of L 21 lacs.;