THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1370 of 2011 June 10, 2011 Between: B.Chandra Reddy, S/o.B.Krishna Reddy ... Petitioner And Smt.Vijaya, Widow of Rajamanikyam And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1370 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff in an unnumbered suit on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The Court below returned the plaint advising to pay deficit court fee. Aggrieved by the same, present civil revision petition is filed. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. One Rajamanikyam was the Manager of the joint family consisting of himself, his wife and sons. He borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 21.2.2002 from the plaintiff and executed promissory note. He died on 17.4.2002. It appears that his legal heirs allegedly executed a collusive mortgage deed in favour of sixth defendant (maternal uncle of the first defendant). Therefore, after issuing suit notice dated 16.6.2003 demanding the promissory note amount, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking following reliefs. (a) Directing the defendants 1 to 5 do pay the plaintiff the suit amount, together with further interest, from out of the estate of the deceased B.Rajamanikyam including his LIC benefits, (b) Declaring that the registered mortgage deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 6th defendant is sham, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff as far as his right to claim precedence to proceed against the property of the deceased Rajamanikyam more fully described in the plaint schedule hereunder, (c) Directing the defendants do pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit, (d) And grant such other and further reliefs as are just and necessary. On the relief (a), a court fee of Rs.2,017/- under Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (the Act) was paid. The relief (b) was notionally valued at Rs.1,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.111/- was paid under Section 24(d) of the Act. The Court below, however, returned the plaint on 27.10.2003 advising payment of court fee under Section 24(d) in respect of relief (b) also. At the request of the plaintiff, the matter was called on the bench and heard. On 12.12.2003, the impugned order was passed, which reads as under. Heard. The Counsel for the plaintiff contended that plaintiff is not a party to the mortgage deed and he is seeking declaration that the mortgage deed is not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, he has paid court fee under Section 24(d) of APCF Act bi fixing the notional value. But the said contention is not accepted. The objection taken by the office holds good, because the plaintiff is seeking the relief of declaration that the mortgage deed is not binding on the plaintiff and the said mortgage deed is capable of valuation and it is for Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiff has to pay the court fee for second relief on Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 24(d) i.e., value of mortgage deed. Hence plaint is returned. Time 7 days. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is seeking declaration that the registered mortgage deed is a sham, nominal and fraudulent and not binding on the plaint as far as his right to claim precedence against the property of the deceased original promissor and, therefore, Section 24(d) of the Act has no application. According to the learned Counsel, the relief (b) was correctly valued notionally. Section 24 of the Act reads as under. 24. Suits for declaration:- In a suit for declaration with or without consequential relief, not falling under Section 25 – (a) Where the prayer is for a declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or three-fourths of the market value of the immovable property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher; (b) Where the prayer is for declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher; (c) Where the prayer relates to the plaintiff’s exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher; (d) In other cases, whether the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. The above provision basically is concerned with the valuation of the suits for declaration. The provision contemplates three types of suits, namely, (1) suit for declaration and possession of property to which declaration relates. In such a suit, the court fee shall be computed on the market value of the movable property or 3/4ths of the market value of the immovable property or on Rs.1,000/- whichever is higher; (2) suit for declaration and consequential injunction. In such a suit, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs.300/-, whichever is higher; and (3) suit relates to plaintiff’s exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other think. In such a suit, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued. In addition to the three distinct suits, Section 24(d) of the Act contemplates all other suits, which are not covered by Section 24 (a), (b) and (c) of the Act. This again deals with a suit where the subject matter is capable of valuation or a suit where subject matter is not capable of valuation. In either case, the fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. The petitioner/plaintiff notionally valued the relief (b) in the suit at Rs.1,000/- although the plaint schedule property was mortgaged for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of sixth defendant. On a plain reading of Section 24(d) of the Act, therefore, and insofar as prayer (b) is concerned, the fee shall be computed on Rs.1,00,000/- as the plaint sought the relief of declaration that the said mortgage deed is sham, nominal, fraudulent and not binding on the plaintiff as far as his right to proceed against the property of late Rajamanikyam. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial Court was correct. In this civil revision petition, no interference is called for. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The original plaint along with court fee stamps and all the papers shall be returned to the Counsel for the petitioner to enable him to present the same to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, within a period of three weeks from today, after duly complying with the objections raised by the Court below. _________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 10, 2011 NOTE: The Registry is directed to return the original plaint along with court fee and all the papers to the Counsel for the petitioner by 13.6.2011. (By order) YS