THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2539 OF 2010 DATED: 20-08-2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment, dated 29-10-2009, in C.M.A.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said appeal filed by the revision petitioners herein was dismissed confirming the order, dated 25-11-2008, in I.A.No.375 of 2008 in O.S.No.114 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Petitioners herein filed O.S.No.114 of 2008 against the respondents for cancellation of the sale deed, dated 02-08-2002. Plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.375 of 2008 for temporary injunction. The learned Junior Civil Judge by order, dated 25-11-2008, held that the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed the plaint to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper Court on the ground that the market value of the property as on the date of filing of the plaint exceeded the limits of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed C.M.A.No.2 of 2009. Vide impugned order, the learned Additional District Judge also confirmed that for the purpose of Court fee the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint has to be taken into consideration and not the value shown in the registered sale deed and the valuation of the suit has to be determined as per the market value of the property. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge directing return of the plaint for presentation to proper Court. 4. The suit document, namely the sale deed, dated 02-08-2007, shows the sale consideration of subject- matter of sale as Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. During enquiry in I.A.No.375 of 2008, plaintiff produced valuation certificate, dated 04-10-2002, showing that the market value of the property was Rs.19,36,000/-. Plaintiff contended that the plaint is to be valued on the basis of the sale consideration amount mentioned in the sale deed, but not on the market value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit. In support of the said contention, he sought to rely upon ALLAM VENKATESWARA REDDY v. GOLLA VENKATANARAYANA AND OTHERS [1], wherein this Court held as follows: “ In a suit for cancellation of sale deeds which were executed for a certain sum, the Court fee has to be paid on that sum and not on the present market value of the properties which are the subject-matter of the two sale deeds”. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants, on the other hand, relied upon a decision of the High Court of Madras in T.S.RAJAM AMMAL v. V.N.SWAMINATHAN AND OTHERS[2], wherein a contrary view was expressed to the effect that in a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, the Court fee is to be paid on the market value of the property involved as on the date of the plaint and not on consideration recited in it. 7. The above decision of the High Court of Madras was rendered, following the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Madras in KOLACHALA KUTUMBA SASTRI v. LAKKARAJU BALATRIPURA SUNDARAMMA[3]. Recently a Division Bench of this Court in LAKSHMINAGAR HOUSING WELFARE ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD v. SYED SAMI @ SYED SAMIUDDIN AND OTHERS[4], following the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras ( 3rd cited supra), held as follows: “Reading Section 7 of the Act plainly, there cannot be any doubt that where the Court fee payable depends on market value of the property, such market value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint. Sections 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 37 of the Act deal with various types of the suits for various reliefs. Of these, except Sections 30 ad 31, all others require computation of Court fee based on the market value of property. Reading each of these provisions with Section 7 of the Act, it is clear that wherever a suit for any relief is in relation to immovable property, the Court fee shall be computed on the market value of such property determined on the date of presentation of plaint. Section 37 of the Act also deals with suits for or concerning movable or immovable property. The absence of the term, “market value on the property” in Section 37 of the act gives scope for the argument that the market value has to be determined not with reference to market value as on the date of the plaint but with reference to the market value mentioned in the document pertaining to plaint schedule property. But on a careful scrutiny of Section 37 of the Act, such argument cannot be sustained. On an analysis of Section 37 of the act, the following would emerge. Section 37 deals with three categories of suits, which are : Category– A: suits for cancellation of decree for money, Category – B: Suits for cancellation of decree for (in relation to) movable or immovable property, and Category–C: Suits for cancellation of documents, which create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish the right or title or interest in presentee or in futuro. Section 37(1) stipulates that if the suit is for cancellation of a decree o other document wholly, the Court fee shall be paid on the amount or value of the property. Section 37 (1) (a) of the Act cannot be read de hors first part of Section 37 (1) of the Act itself. So read, the situation that would emerge is as follows:- In category-A suits dealing with cancellation of decree for money, without any doubt the subject-matter of the suit will be the money liable to be paid under the said decree. Therefore the Court fee has to be paid on the value or money mentioned in the decree. Therefore the Court fee has to be paid on the value or money mentioned in the decree. For instance, if a suit is filed for cancellation of a decree for money of Rs.1,00,000/-, Court fee shall be payable on Rs.1,00,000/-, which is certainly the subject-matter of suit for cancellation of decree. Category-B and Category-C suits deal with cancellation of decree and/or a document for property or document, which creates or declares a right. In these categories of suits, the subject-matter of the suit is the property and not money value. As the subject- matter of the suit i.e., suit for cancellation of decree/document is immovable property, such market value has to be determined on the date of presentation of plaint. Any other interpretation of Section 37 (1) of the Act would amount to ignoring the fact that Section 37(1) of the Act deals with three categories of suits as noticed supra and there cannot be same formula for determining Court fee payable on category-A suit on one hand and Categories _B and C suits on the other hand”. 8. In view of the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court (2nd cited supra), which was rendered following the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras (3rd cited supra), the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court fee has to be paid and the suit has to be valued on the basis of the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, cannot be accepted and the suit is liable to be valued on the basis of the market value of the property covered by the sale deed as on the date of presentation of the plaint for the purpose of the Court fee and jurisdiction. The impugned order of the learned Junior Civil Judge holding that the said Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore directing return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate Court and the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, confirming the same, are therefore held not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the plaint is directed to be returned for presentation to proper Court and the plaintiffs are granted four weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for such presentation before the appropriate Court. 9. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th August, 2010. Tsy [1] AIR 1975 ANDHRA PRADESH 122 [2] AIR 1974 MADRAS 152 (V 61 C 48) [3] AIR 1939 MADRAS 462 [4] 2010 (4) ALD 389 (DB)