26.07.2005 as it was obtained fraudulently b direct the defendants to pay the companyt of the suit.
It was companytended that for cancellation of sale deed, Court Fee has to be calculated on the current market value, but number as per value shown on the document.
The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as already stated, placing reliance on the judgment of the Madras High Court in T.S. Rajam Ammal supra and also the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Kolachala Kutumba Sastri supra and also a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association supra , took the view that under Section 37 of the Court Fees Act, for cancellation of the sale deed the suit has to be valued on the basis of the market value of the property governed by the sale deed on the date of presentation of the plaint for the purposes of Court Fee and jurisdiction and number on the basis of sale companysideration mentioned in the sale deed.
A 6 showing the market value of the property as Rs.19,36,000/ by the year 2002 and companytended that the alleged sale for Rs.1 lakh was a fraudulent transaction.
Consequently, it was held that the Court has numberpecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper Court.
Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Kolachala Kutumba Sastri supra and T.S. Rajam Ammal v. V.N. Swaminathan Ors.
Value of the suit for the purposes of Court Fee and jurisdiction was shown as the value of the deed to be cancelled i.e. Rs.1 lakh.
The Appellants Plaintiffs, aggrieved by the said order, filed M.A. No.2 of 2009 in the Court of the Judge, Family Court cum District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.
The Appellants Plaintiffs filed O.S. No.114 of 2008 on 21.7.2008 before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs a to cancel the alleged sale deed dated 2.8.2002 which was got registered as No.2496/05 by the Sub Registrar, Kothavalasa on dt.
462, and the Division Bench Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association v. Syed Sami Syed Samiuddin Ors.
Court Fee of Rs.3,426/ was paid under Section 37 of the Court Fees Act, deposited vide Challan No.4239075 dated 29.7.2008.
The Appellants Plaintiffs filed I.A. No.374 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the Respondents therein from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and also filed I.A. No.375 of 2008 and sought an order restraining the Respondents from operating the sale deed until the disposal of the suit.
The Appellant, aggrieved by the said order, filed Civil Revision Petition No.2539 of 2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
The appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 29.10.2009 holding that the Court below has numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint was companyrectly returned for presentation before the appropriate Court holding that the Court Fee has to be calculated as per the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint and number on the value shown in the registered sale deed.
The appellants then filed a review petition being Review CRP No.6557 of 2010 seeking review of the judgment based on the Judgment of this Court in Satheedevi v. Prasanna and another 2010 5 SCC 622.
AIR 1939 Mad.
2010 5 ALT 96, held that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed, Court Fee has to be determined on the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint and number the value shown in the registered sale deed, the legality of which is under challenge in these appeals.
The Respondents raised an objection that the Civil Judge has numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit since the Plaintiffs case is that the market value of the property is more than Rs.1 lakh.
During enquiry in I.A. No.375 of 2008, the Appellants Plaintiffs got market value certificate dated 4.10.2002 as Exh.
30 July, 2005 as the orders of District Registrar dt.
AIR 1954 Mad.
Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been preferred.
The review petition was, however, dismissed on 19.1.2011.
