THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.2674 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order dated 04.03.2009 passed in O.S.(SR).No.17385 of 2008 by the learned Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It appears, the petitioners herein presented the plaint before the Court below, seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the governmental authorities, and the same was returned by the Court below on 13.10.2008, with the objection that the suit be valued as per valuation certificate and therefore court fee has to be paid under Section 24 (b) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), and also with certain other objections as regards procedural requirements. Thereafter, the petitioners resubmitted the plaint, reporting compliance of certain objections and rendering answers for the other objections that are not complied with. So far as the objection as regards the payment of court fee is concerned, it was submitted by the petitioners that court fee of Rs.300/- was paid. Not satisfied with the same, the Court below again returned the plaint and ultimately the matter was called on the Bench for hearing on the objection regarding payment of court fee. The Court below, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, held that the petitioners are seeking declaration of title to the property; therefore, they have to pay court fee under Section 24 (b) of the Act, and accordingly returned the plaint for complying with the objection, by the docket order dated 04.03.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since respondents-Government on the one hand assert that the suit land is a Government land and that the petitioners are encroachers thereof, and on the other hand, they themselves in W.P. No. 1428 of 1976 have given an undertaking that they will consider grant of pattas, there exists dispute as regards possession, and since there is dispute as regards possession of the property, the objection taken that court fee has to be paid as per the provisions of Section 24(b) of the Act, has to be over- ruled. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioners are seeking declaration and perpetual injunction, they have to pay the court fee as per the provisions of Section 24(b) of the Act, and the Court below has rightly directed the petitioners to pay the court fee as required under the said provision, and no interference is called for therewith. Heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. The petitioners, admittedly, are seeking the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction. Whether the petitioners are liable to pay court fee as per Section 24(a) or (b) thereof, has to be decided based on the relief sought by the petitioners in the suit and not based on the stand taken by the defendants in the previous litigation between them. The petitioners, in the plaint, pleaded that their predecessors are the absolute owners and after them, they are in possession of the suit schedule property and that the respondents with a mala fide intention to deny them the property, have disputed their title. From this stand taken by the petitioners, it is clear that they have asserted their possession over the property and seek to prevent the respondents from interfering with their possession by way of obtaining declaration and perpetual injunction. Since the petitioners, claiming to be in possession of the property, sought the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents, they are liable to pay the court fee as per the provisions of Section 24(b) of the Act, and therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the Court below, directing the petitioners to pay the court fee as per Section 24(b) of the Act. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 26th July, 2010 IBL