D. PEERAJEE Vs. D. VITHAL RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions have been filed against an order of the trial Court, directing the Plaintiff to pay Court -fee on the valuation of the property mentioned in a document.

(2.) IN order to understand the respective arguments urged on behalf of the revision petitioners, it is necessary to give a brief summary of the allegations contained in the plaint. It is alleged therein that a house No. 5565 belonged to the father of the Plaintiff, who died on Dai 9, 1351 Fasli: November 13, 1941, and the Plaintiff was in full possession of the house as an heir; the Defendants fraudulently executed an agreement, dated Bahman 7, 1347 Fasli: December 10, 1937, which was also registered on Bahman 17, 1347, F.: December 20, 1937; in which the house was shown to belong to Kodi Vithal Rao and D. Subhanji. These two persons have been impleaded as Defendants Nos. 1 and 5 to the suit. Then the plaint continues that on the Plaintiff expressing disagreement with the contract, the Defendants promised to get the agreement cancelled and further to execute a proper document of disclaimer;, a draft of such a disclaimer was accordingly prepared on Farwardi 11, 1354 F.: February 12, 1945, and they appended their signatures on it;. but on notice to execute and have the promised document registered, they have now refused; the Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to get the document executed and registered; as the house is in possession of the tenants, Md. Hussain and Pashia, whom the Plaintiff does not seek to eject; no relief for possession of property is necessary. Then in paragraph 3 of the plaint, it is claimed that the subject -matter in dispute is to have a document of disclaimer executed, which is not capable of being valued, and therefore, a fixed Court -fee of Rs. 20/ - is paid under Article 13 of Schedule 2 to the Hyderabad Court -Fees Act.

(3.) THE Plaintiff has filed a revision petition urging that the decision is erroneous and he is liable to pay only the fixed Court -fee. The Defendants have also filed another revision petition urging that the Court -fee should be payable on the market value of the house property and the direction to pay on the amount mentioned in the document is incorrect.