ORDER : Mr. S.P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. None for the respondent. 3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 08.01.2015, by which the Trial Court has allowed the application preferred by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 under Section 11 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been allowed and the plaintiffs has been directed to pay ad-valorem court fee on the subject matter of the suit. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. In the suit, the plaintiff have sought the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 05.12.2012 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants are null and void and are not binding on the plaintiffs. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed an application under Section 11 of the Act in which inter alia it was pleaded that the plaintiffs have not paid the proper court fee in respect of the reliefs claimed in the suit. The Trial Court by order dated 08.01.2015 has allowed the aforesaid application and has directed the petitioners to pay the court fee on the reliefs claimed by them under Section 38 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed and therefore, mere relief of declaration that the aforesaid sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs is sufficient. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘POLAMRASETTI MANIKYAM & ANR. VS. TEEGALA VENKATA RAMAYYA & ANR.’, AIR 2014 SC 1286 and has submitted that Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 is in para materia with the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the expression ‘value of property’ was interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the same does not connote the market value of the property at the presentation of the suit. However, the Trial Court has directed the petitioners to pay the Court fee on the Market value of the property. 6. However, the Trial Court has directed the petitioners to pay the Court fee on the Market value of the property. 6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. It is evident that the petitioners are not parties to the sale deed. The Supreme Court in the case of POLAMRASETTI MANIKYAM (supra) while dealing with para materia provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 has held that the expression ‘value of the property’ cannot be held to mean the ‘market value of the property’ at the time of presentation of the suit. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into account the fact that the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed in respect of which they have sought the declaration, the impugned order insofar as it pertains to directing the petitioners to make payment of court fee on the basis of the market value of the property is quashed and set aside. The petitioners shall be at liberty to value the relief claimed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.