ARUNACHALATHAMMAL AND ORS. Vs. SUDALAIMUTHU PILLAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 132 of 1967 against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelvelt, holding that the plaintiffs should pay court fee for cancellation of a settlement dated 17th July 1947, executed by the first plaintiff and the first defendant on the value of the document, namely, Rs. 3500. The plaintiffs filed the suit praying for various reliefs, but we are concerned only with the prayer for cancellation of the document dated 17th July, 1947, a settlement deed executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. It was contended before the lower court by the defendants that the court fee was payable under S. 41 of the Madras Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, Act XIV of 1955, and that the value of the subject matter of the suit should be deemed to be the value of the property, that is the market value. This contention was not accepted and the court held that the value of the subject matter of the suit should be deemed to be the amount for which the document was executed and therefore directed that court fee should be paid on the value of the document, namely, Rs. 3500.

(2.) S. 40(1) of the Court fees and Suits Valuation Act runs thus : -

(3.) It will be seen that the Sec. provides for suits (1) relating to cancellation of a decree for money, (2) cancellation of a decree for other property having a money value, and (3) cancellation of other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish rights in moveable or immovable property. The sub -section provides that fee shall be computed on the value of the subject -matter of the suit. Then it proceeds to state how such value should be calculated. It provides that if the whole decree is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed should be taken into account. In the case of other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish rights in moveable or immovable property, the value shall be deemed to be the value of the property. It is not clear at to whether the words "the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed" are applicable to the cancellation of a document which creates or declares rights in moveable or immovable property. In the case of suits for cancellation of ether document, apart from suits for cancellation of a decree for money or other property, the above clause would be certainly applicable. This would mean that in the case of suits for cancellation of other documents, the value of the subject matter of the suit shall be deemed to be the amount for which the document was executed. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that even in the case of a suit for cancellation of other documents, the value shall be deemed to be the value of the property - But this contention would Ignore the effect of the words "value of the property for which the decree was passed". Even conceding that the value of the property should be taken into account in suits for cancellation of other documents, there are two modes provided for to compute the value of the subject matter of the suit, (1) the value of the property and (2) the amount for which the document was executed.