V. Saniay, S/o Late v. Padma Reddy Aged

16.V. Saniay, S/o Late V. Padma Reddy Aged..abput 34 years' Occ Business R/o '" ii.t il;. ib5,'sai ctranora*toweiJn'ocr"uiils colony,-L.B Nagar, Hyderabad 17.T. Srinivas, S/o T Mahabub Aged about 34 years' Occ.Business R/o Plot No' " izlslr.iSt"lony MeerpJt, sa"roornagar, Ringa Reddy District 18. N. Venuqopal, S/o N. Sambasiva Rao Aged a^bgul ap years' Occ'Business '" ii.l""i.ir1.-rolre_zta2it^. tingogrgudai6th Block Janapriya Apartments Saroornagar, Ranga ReddY District

19. Kallemlinga Reddy, Solo K' Yadr Reddy Aged .qbout 36 vears' Occ'Business R/o 1-17, Chinnaravrrayal V'rr'g" H'/ulhna"garMandal' Ranga Reddy Distrtct 20.8. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late B sudershan Reddy Aged about-47 years' Occ' '" E;;;; Rio r-l-'tia, s,inlg; colonv, Near anufaniKalvanaMandapam Lane Dilsukbnagar, HYderabad 21- Ramavath Pradas Naik, S/o Late R Rajylage.q about 51 vears' Occ' Business, R/o H.No. s+'idZjl r'f rrsimtii na"o t'lagar Shara]tha Nlgar ColonY' il;;'5"hililt;, rlrnpi". V,il"ih'lipu".n' Havaithnagar Ranga Reddv District Hayathnagar, Ranga ReddY District 2l.Danvalh Nagesh Naik, S/o Danavath Dasru Aged ajrout 35 years'.Occ' -- il;;;;;; R/6Frot ruo.zd, buisa ruagar colonv-sai Baba Temple' lnjapur 23.M. Santosh Reddy. S/o Late M Venkat ned-dy Agq{ abou!.45 years' Occ' '- iil."iil.i cl;i{.Nlj. s al4liil. prot r.ro 679 sKD Nagar, Vanasthalipuram Hyderabad- 500070

24. Donthula Mohan, S/o DonthulaMurali Aged about 56. vears Occ Employee - Hil'Ei,71b';, pis, rlrpi ioir"-i'rup nri.. go nciamMandal Peddapalli Distric{ ... Ilespondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section i 51 of cpc praying that in tne circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High c ourt may be pleased to grant stay all further proceedings in OS.NO.291 l2}i',, on th; file of the ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AMBADIPUDI SAWANI,RAYANA Counsel for the. Respondent No.1: M/s RESU LAW OFF CE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CIVIL REVISION PETITTON No.1762 of 2019 ORDER This civil Revision Petition is Iiled by the petitioner - def'endant No. l0 chailcncing the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, I(:r:rg:r.eiJdy District at L.B'Nagar in I-A.No'1264 ol 2017 in O S'No 29 I ol ir)l '- 0.,,"0 72.04.2019. L i. \.\o. 1264 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner - def'cndant No l0 undcr i',, 1.,,- \ I I l{Lrle 1 I read with section 15 1 of cPC to direct the plaintil ts to Value ilr.; .iiii on thc outstanding balance of Rs. I8,77,85,093 20 ps', arrd to pa1 thc ._.,.,;,.,.; (-1:11;-l lee on the said amount, and in case of failure. to reject the plaint. I ijre petirioner - defendant No.l0 was a banking compan) incorpot'ated ,i. rrl..i il-lc (-ornpany's Act, 1956 represented by its Managing Dilcctor. I'he ilr-:rnclr \larrager of A.S.Rao Nagar Branch of the petitioner bank illed an .rr'ililri\ ,l in supporr of the petition stating that the suit was filed b1 the plaintifl- .rg:rinsr dcie rrdants I to 4 seeking the relief of decla|ation of Various sale deeds :rs iiiegal. null and void and not binding on the ptaintitT and tirr perpetual irii::rciion restraining the defendants fiom transferring or conveyillu or crceting anl'thirtl party right on the schedule properties' The def-endant No'9 created an cctuiiiibie lttortgage in plaint "C" schedule property b1'depositing [elevant title 2 l)r.GRlt..l ctp_1762_201t) deeds narnell' der elopment agreement - cum - General rrr iver. o r' Attorner, ( rb' short "GPA") bearing documenr No.4460 of 2001 origi,al additionai supplementary Cevelopment agreement dated -.1.07.2015, original supplenrentary de,'elopment agreement dated 19.03.2015 rL rrl original registered sale deed bcaring document No.l829 ol 2016 with thc ilefendant bank and confirmed thc sanie by cxecuting registered Memorandur.r of Deposit of title deeds dated 15.01.10 l6 bearing document No.3276 of lll6 and extension ,f' mortgas.e b' u.ar ()1- a ,renlorandurn dated 05.08.2016. 'l rrrs, a ralid r-nofigas.. was creatcd on thi pllint "c" sclredule property as securit. to the loan 1-aciiir_r availed tr; hirn of [i.s.20,00.00.000i- in tctal as cn the cate rl'filing olrhc sLiil i,c. by 3l .03.20 i 7. -l're plaintifl- *'as chalie,gi,g the said i.( r.tgage i, rlre ab()\ j suit and prayed lbr declarari.n of the sare deed documc rr No.2g29 of l0 r(r. memorzrnriuru ol cit'posir oi title decds. etc., as i[legal, null rLnd void. etc. Since the rnortgagc creat€d on plaint "c" schedr-rie property was cl.ered as securitr 1br. ihe loan faciiii-v .i is.10.00 crt>res anil the outstanding am. rnt duc, anci pal,ablc under the saicl I.an lacilirl'as on the dare of the suit was Rr; ig,77,g5,093.10ps.. the plaintill'ousht tl hare' vaiued tlrc relief of declaring the .,ale cleed dc.,cun.icr.rr No.2829 ol- l0l6 a rd rrcrnorandurn oi'<ieposit of title dcc< bearing docurL,rrri No.3276 r-rf l0 l6 a-. ntrll and .roid .n the outstanding amo.r,t due and pa1,ahic. Horvever, thc plaini itf crroneouslv and u.rongly valued th: suit firr th.-, reiie t.s including tlic said .rrlicl ar Rs. t.00.00(lr- on11, and paid cor l fee .t' Rs..l--116i - 3 Dr.GRR, J crp _17 62 _2019 only, which was illegal and against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (for short "the Act", 1956).

4. The respondent plaintiff filed counter affidavit in the said I.A contending that the documents such as additional supplementary development agreement dated 22.07.2015 and original supplementary development agreement dated 19.03.2015 referred by the petitioner claimed to have been deposited by respondent - defendant No.9 were rank forged and fabricated, as the respondent - plaintiff never executed such documents. The said documents rvould need to be put to test of authenticity by referring the same to expen study or lorensic examination. The petitioner - defendant No. l0 bank should take steps to ascertain the truth of the documents and to initiate proceedings under criminal law against its alleged borrowers, who filed them before it. Such action by the pctitioner - defendant No.l0 would demonstrate the sincerity and honesty of the pctitioner. The respondent - plaintiff contended that when lhe title oI respondent defendant No.9 was under scanner, the question of mortgaging it rvould not arise. The petitioner in collusion with respondent - def-endant No.9 was figuring the amounts as per their whims and f'ancies rvithout there being any such scrutiny regarding the entitlement ol respondent - det-endant No.9. -l'hc atlegation that the respondent - ptaintifT wrongly valued the suit was lalse and incorrect. The respondent - plaintilf valued the suit on proper verification as per the provisions of the Act, 1956. Therefore, the 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_1762_2019 question of irnproper valuation of suit would not arise. 1'rc OIIlce of the Court upon due scrutiny and inspection accepted the valida r,:n rendered by the respondent - plaintifl and registered the suit. The ingrec i,::nts contained in the petition would not come under the ambit of Order VII 1{ule 1 1 of CPC and prayed to dismiss hc petition.

5. The trial c.)urt on considering the arguments ol the counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. I - plaintitland consiciering the oitations reiied by them, obsen'ed that as plaintiff was not a part), to the d( ( Lrment, there was no necessity for him to pay the Court lee as per Section 37 or'1he Act, 1956. The payment of Court lec on notional value r.i,as between the p,lrrintiff and the Court. The Court at any tinre by giving notice could enhance trc notional value and collect the deficit tlourr flec. The petitioner - de{bndant No. l0 could not contend that the outstanding arnounts were to a tune of Rs.18.00 cr,.)res and odd relating to "C" schedule ploperty, as such could not seek for a di',:ction to the plaintiff to pay the Court fi:e ou the outstanding amount. No tenah e reasons were there to reject the plaint and accordingly dismissed the petition.

6. Aggrieved by the said disrnissal, the petitione: - deftndant No.10 prefened this revis,ion.

7. Heard Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, leamed Senior Counsel representing on behalf of Smt.Ch.Laxrni Chaya, learned counsel for the 5 petrtioner on record and Ms.D.Shivani Reddy, leamed respondent No.l - plaintiff on behalf of M/s.Resu Law Office Dr.CRR, J crp _17 62_2019 counsel for the 8' Leamed senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that when the plaintitrwas seeking the rerief to set aside the sale deed, the varuation of the suit ought to be the value of the property mentioned in the document, but not on notional value. Since the sale deed has been deposited with the bank and a mortgage has been creatcd in ravor of the bank and virtually the plaintilf was seeking the relief of setting aside thc mortgage, in such circumstances, valuing the suit lor the said relicl notionally on Rs. 1,00,000/- was not correct. As per Section i7 of the Act, r956, the value ought to have been mentioned as the value mentioned in the deed. when the sale deed and consequentiar mortgage deed wcre sought to be cancelled, the value must be the amount mentioned in the deed and not on notional value or Rs.r,00,000/-. The suit was not property valued. 'l'[re trial Judge being the custodian of the court fee to be paid, ought to have directed the plaintitf to varue the suit properly and in case ol failure ought to have rejected the ptaint. But the trial court erroneously dismissed the petition. An enquiry need to be conducted by the court whether the ',c,' schedule property lell to the share of delendant No.l orplaintiff. If it fell ro the share of delendant No. 1, the dcrendant No. l shourd seek for cancelration of the documeut' but not the plaintiff. The praintiff was not the owner of the property. He was a developer. If the propeny fe[ within the share of the praintiff then \ \ 6 Dr.GRR, J cry'l1 62 _2019 only he had the right to seek for cancellation. The plaintil' ' trcing a constructive pafty to the docunrent, the said document was binding c tr him As such, he should ask for carcellation under Section 37 0f the Act, 1956, but not under Section 24(d) of the said Act. There was no pleading in the plaintwhetherthe "c" schedule prol)erty would latl tnder 43%o or 57o/o rrnd relied upon the judgment of the Fton'bte Apex Court in J.Vasanthi & I )thers v' N'Ramani Kanthammal @ead) represcnteC by ! egal R-epresen t:r rives & Othersr and of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nade Ali \lirza & Others v' Mrs.Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawarvala & Othcrs: g. I-earned corrnsel for the respondent No-l - plaint l[ on the other hand contended that the defendant No. t without having any ril lrt alienated an extent of44000 square feet ofconstructed area to defendant No.!. fhe defendant No.9 mortgaged to defr:ndant No. l0 for Rs.20.00 crores. -l'htt'c sets of alienations were made by de{endant No. I over and abovc as to rvhat lte was entitled. As such, the plaintifl' filed the suit lbr declaration and cor::quential injunction. The trial court rightly dismissed the petition as the respr,trdent No.l - plaintiff 'l'tere was no illegality was not a pafty to the document sought tbr cancellation. in the order of the triat court to set aside the same and rclr:,.1 upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apcx courl in Suhrid singh @ Sartlool Singh v. Randhir '(2017)llscc8s2 '2016 (l) ALT 300 f ( 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_1762_2019 Singh and Othersr and of the same judgment retied by the learned Senior counsel for the peritioner in Nade Ali Mirza & others v. Mrs. Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawawala & Others (cited supra).

10. Perused the record. 11' As per the averments in the praint, the p.laintiff was a real estate company and proposed to deverop a project at Kothaguda Village, seriringampally Mandal, Rangareddy District into residential and commercial blocks and the respective owners and possessors o| la,d admeasuring Ac.6-26 guntas forming part of Survey Nos.4l, 42, 48,49, 50 and 53 of Kothaguda Village had offered him to develop their respective lands into residential / commercial btocks. The defendant No' I atong with one p.Madhusudhan Reddy, who were owners and possessors of the land admcasuring Ac. l-00 guntas forming part of Survey Nos'41 and 42 situated at Korhaguda vilrage, having noticed that the plaintiff was developing the land adrneasuring Ac.6_26 guntas abutting their property approached the plaintifr offering their rand for development and requested to develop the sarne corn.ronry along with other abutting lands. The plaintiff entered into a registered developmenr agreement - cum - GpA dated 30. l r.2006 bearing documenr No.4460 of 2007 ror the entire rand admeasuring Ac.7-26 guntas, which was shown as suit schedure "A" property. The praintiff submitted that the land owners of schedule "A" property inctuding defendant No.r and 3 AIR 20 t 0 sc 2807 8 Dr.GRR, J crp _17 62 _2019 P.Madhusudhan Reddy delivered physicat possession of the land 1o the plaintiff under the registered development agreement - cum - GIr,r dated 30.11.2006. one of the terms included in the said development agre'riment specifies the entitlernent of shares to the plaintiff and land owners of s:lredtrle "A" property as 47ok share to th: plaintiff and 53% share to the land ov'rcrs ol'schedule "A" property including defendant No. I and P.Madhusudhan r{cdrly jointly. The piaintifi obtaineci required perrnissions, procureC c1) rstrlrction material, expertise manpo!*er, etc., as required lor the projcct I nd cc''mmenced the construction in phase wise manner and the samc was undt r llrogrcss. While so, the delendants 210 8 issued a legal notice dated 3i.i0.-i)i'i contending that they entered intc, various registered instruments rvitl ilettndant No.l to purchase his entitl,:ment from and out of suit schedule "A' riopertl' and claimed that they purchas<:d individuatly various cxtents total act irnlulating to 44,914 square feet of constructed area along with proportionatc rndiVitled shares and demanded for allocation of extents physicalll' under a str [,]) lcnlcntary indenture. The ptaintiff contr:nded that the sai,l allocation demande-rl hy tle l'endants 2 to 8 was imaginary without there being any physical existenc( 'l-hc delendant No.1 had no opportunity to deliver any physicat possession ol-.,:heclulc "B" property to delendants 2 to 8 as defendant No.l himsclf never acqrr red ii,rm the plaintiff after the developnrent agreement. The docutnents relied I' dctendants 2 to 8 in respect of suit schedule "B" property rvere t'abricated an,l invcnted in collusion 9 ""0_?;;3Sii with defendant No. I without there being any true transaction. The plaintiff issued a reply notice. The defendants 2 to 8 went upon speculative proceedings got issued another legal notice dated 21.11.2014 invoking clause-42 of the development agreement - cum - GPA dated 30. ll.2016 contending that they acquired the alleged rights from defendant No.l. on receipt of the said legal notice, the plaintiff also got issued a reply notice dated29.ll.20l4 that there was no contractual obligation between the ptaintiff and defendants 2 to g. The defendants 2 to 8 filed proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 vde o.P.No. 128 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy Disrrict at L.B.Nagar against the plaintiff claiming various reliefs in respect of schedule "A" property including a restraint order pending disposal of arbitrarion proceedings. Aparl lrom filing O.p.No.l28 of 2015,the defendants 2 to 8 also filcd an Ar-bitration Apptication No.44 of 2015 before the High court under Sccrion I l(4) o1' the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator againsr thc plainti[f and several others. I 1. l. During the pendency ol O.P.No. I 28 ol 20 I 5, the defendants 2 to 8 jointly issued legal notice dated 12.02.2017 to delendant No. I along with plaintiff and defendants 9 to 24 alleging that defendant No. I ignoring the transactions made in their favor with regard to schedule "B" property had further transferred the property in the shape of residential plots to defbndant No.9 under registered sale deed dated 05.03.20 l6 bearing documenr No.2829 of 2016. Keeping the -\ 10 Dr.GRR..I crq _17 62_2019 transaction with clefendants 2 to 8 in respect of schedule " 13" propcrty apa(, the defendant No.l frrther indutged in muttiplying docume rts while entering into transaction with defendant No.9 in respect of schedulc "C" property. The defendant No.9 intum mortgaged the said property in lar or of'defendant No.10 without any right or qualification.

11.2. The plaintiff fi;rther averred that defendant No.! r)an lrom nraking the above said transactions further executed and entercd in o various transactions ..vith cieiendants i i to 24 in respect oivarious propenics ri,:iineaieci as itcrns I tc, l0 in the schedul(. "D" property.

11.3. The notice dated 12.02.2017 issued by del'endant: .l to 8 would reler to the above said do,:uments executed by defendant No. I in l:rvor ol- def cndants I I Io 24 and the same would show that there were ull'c! istered supplementary agreernents dated 19.03.2015 and 08.08.2016 execr.rtcd tr, plaintifl-in favor of dcfendant i"\o.l tr> the registered development agreemcrr - cutn - (lPA. dated

30.11.2006. The piaintiffcontended that he never execLr.,rd any supplenrentary agreements to th e registered development agrecmcnt GPA dated

30. I 1 .2006. Th,: defendant No. I with a rnalicious i ntention had florged, labricated and invented the said supplementary agreern..lts to plai, tiaud on everybody. The tlefendant No.l without there being any physical allotment ol shares either in th,: shape of flats or otherwisc frour and o.rt. of suit schcdule "A" 11 Dr.GRR, J crp _1167_2019 property was having no right or occasion to make any indentures either as schedule "B", schedule "C" or schedule "D" properties. The defendants 2 to 8 in the said notice demanded the plaintiff to cancel the non-existing forged supplementary agreements. I 1.4. The plaintiff having seen the conlusion and multiplication of dispute made enquires before the Registrars concemed and noticed that defendant No.1 though not qualified to execute any transaction in flavor of defendants 2 to 8 with regard to schedule "B" property colluded with delendant No.9 and created registered sale deed dated 08.03.20 l6 bearing document No.2829 of 2016 as if the suit schedule "C" property was alienated to him, who in tum charged the same before defendant No. l0 lor rnoney playing liaud with public money. So also the defendant No.1 executed various registered instrulnents to defendants ll to 24 in respect of suit schedule "D" property though not entitled for the same. As such, filed the suit lbr cancellation ol- the above documents and seeking the consequential retiel ol perpetual injunction.

12. The suit was filed by the respondent No. I - ptaintiff seeking declaration to declare the registered sale deed documents executed by def'endant No.l in favor of defendants 2 to 8 with regard to suit schedule "B" property as null and void, illegal and that they were not binding on the plaintitT and to declare the registered sale deed docurnent dated 08.03.2016 bearing document No.2829 of 1-2 Dr.GRR, J crp_1162 2Ol9 2016 alleged to have been executed by defendant No. I ir favor ofdefendant No.9 with regard to schedule "C" property, consequentl\ ihe rnemorandum of deposit of title d:ed dated 15.03.2016 bearing documt:lt No.3276 of 2016 executed by defen,lant No.9 in favor of defendant No.l0 ar rrull and void, illegal and would not bind upon him and to declare the registele11 agrccment of sale - cum - GPAs, assignment deeds, sale deeds., etc., executed ry clcfendant No.l in lavor of defendants I I to 24 in respect of items I to 10 o1-:;,:hedule "D" property derivcd liom suit schedule "A" propefty as null and void. illegal and rvould not bind upon him and consequently for perpetual injunction rcstraining the defr-iidriiis jointly ai-r,C severally frori-, inteifering with Iiis posscssion and construction over .he suit schedule "A" property, which in,:luded suit schedule B to D properlies The suit was notionally valued at F: , l,(10,000/- on each docurncnt under S:ction 2 (d) of the Act, 1956 and a Ccrrrt Iree of Rs.3,426l- each w,as paid, rvlrich together comes to Rs.75,3721-. '[ rr: rt:lic-f of perpetual injunction with re1;ard to suit schedule "A" property wa: notr()nally vaiueci at Rs.5,00.000/- undr'r Section 26(c) of the Act, 1956, fbr ,, hich a Court lee of Pts.l,4261- rvas paid. For all the reliefs, a total Court l'ee ol' Its.82,798/- was paid.

13. As seen lrorn the contents of the plaint, the plaintif r' rves not a party to any of thc documents, which he was seeking to be declareri rs rrull and void and not binding upon hLm 13 Dr.GRR, J crp-1762-2019

14. The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad while deciding in Nadc Ali Mirza & Others v. Mrs-Khalida Mohammed Salim Dawawala & Others (cited supra) in C.R.P.No.4 485 of 2012 on 27' 10'2015 almost on a similar issue while considering whether the Court fee payable on the relief of declaration sought whether payable on market value of property or notional value in a suit for perpetual injunction and. for declaring 107 registered sale deeds and agreementsofsale-cum-GPASexecutedbysomeofthedefendantsinfavorof other defendants as null and void, while considering the judgrnent ol the Privy Councit in Bijoy Gopal Mukerji v' Srimati Krishna Mahishi Debia and Ramaswamy lyengar v. Rangacharyars, which were followed in Mohammed Ikramuddin v. Sangram Bosle and others t2007 (5) ALT 6071, held that: "39. In Mohd. Ikramuddin t2007 (5) AI-t 6071' the plaintif l' had filed a suit for declaration of title and reco!'cr) ()l' possession of ptaint schedule propcrtics He also sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by 2nd defendant in favour of lst defendant is nu[[ and void Since it rras a suit lbr declaration of title and recovery of possession' he paid court tte under Section 24 (d) of the Act.

40. The said Provision states :

24. Suits for declaration : -- (d) In other cases, whether the subject-matter of thc suit is capable of valuation or not, tLe shatl be computed on thc ' 34 II-R (Kolkata) PC 329 ' 1940 Alt{ (Madras) 113 74 Dr.CRR. J crp 1762 20t9 amounr at which the relief sought is valued in th: plaint ,tr at rvhich srrch rcliel is valued by the Court whichever i.; higher. 41. "hc trial court took an objection about the pal,rr,rut ot.court I'ec iLnd dirccted him to pay court fee under sectirr) 37o1 the Act :.incc hc is asking for declaration that a registered sale decd was rrull and void and not binding on him. This ua;,questioncd in Rr:r'ision bclore this Court. This Court held thar since the plain ill r.tas not a party to the registered sale deed. l.c necd not ask Iirr canccllation of it and he is perfectly justifirri in asking for conscqucntial relief of declaration that the s,Je r ceC is iiot bindirrg on him. It held that merely because, to be <.t thc sat.e sidc. hc nlaintill sor_rght lor the relief lor declarat,r r thar rire sale dccti is null and void and paid the court fee undcr Sectron 24 (d tot' thc Act, it did not mean that the suit irlls unrier Scction t7 and nor Section 24 (d). It further held ,lr,:rr such a pravcr lbr dcclaration or cancellation could as well hc ignorcd a'd corrrl r-:c necd not bc paid thereon. It herd that a.(..lrdins ro lhc plaint. when thc plaintiff is not a party to the sal€ rrccd rol ask lor cancellation of the sale detc as the cancelarion impries that the pcrson suing shourd be a1 actrrirr ()r constrLcti\ c pan), to a valid or operative document. It hcld that a third oarr_r like the ptaintiff is not bor_rnd by a docunrnt cf.tlie dcscrip ion in qucstion and is not obliged to sue lirr carrccllrrtion. It set aside the order of the court belou rrrecting the plai ltil'f b pav court lee under Section 37 of the AcL but nor undcrS,'ctiun 24 (d)and held that since accordilg to thc. plaintili ir is a sham transaction, he need not pral lor its cancellation aud evcn if such a prayer is made, he neel not pav co urt l'cr.. '' rleed. hc 15 Dr.GRR, J cfp_17 62-2019 I5. The Court further held that: '42. ... Since they are not parties to the 107 sale deeds/agreements of sale cum GPAs mentioned in the plaint, and they contend that they are sham, invalid, null and void and collusive documents and have sought a declaration that they are nutl and void and not binding on them, they not only need not seek relief that these documents be cancelled, but thcy are also not bound to pay any court fee on this relief of declaration in view of the decisions in Bijoy Gopala Mukerji (2 supra), Radha Rani (24 supra), Ramaswami Ayyengar ( I supra), Nagappan (26 supra) and Mohd. Ikramuddin (3 supra).

43. Therefore conclusion of the court belorv that the petitioncrs are bound to pay court fee for the said relicf on the markct value of the plaint schedule properties as indicated in Ex-A.l market value ce(ificate dt.27 .07 .201I, is unsustainable .

46. The reliance on Section 24 by the court belolv in this regard also cannot be sustained since the provisions therein u'ould be attracted only if the petitionen have sought a declaration ol their title and sought relief of possession/inj unction or if they sought for a declaration that documents to wl.rich they are parties are null and void or a declaration of any nature othcr than one sought for in the plaint. The said provision would have no application in a situation where the petitioners are not parties to the documents which they wish to be dcclared as null and void and not binding on them." t6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in J.Vasanthi v- N.Ramani Kanthammal (dead) \ 16 Dr.C!r3-, J crp _7762 _2019 represented by Lrgar representatives (cited supra), wherei'the plaintiff was a pariy to the transaction and tired a suit for declaration fbr h eating the documents as null and void, c.nsidered it as amounting to seeking the r-erief of cance,ation of documents under Section 40 of the Tamilnadu court re <, and suit Valuation Act, 1955. 16'1' The Hon'ble Apex court further referring to a 2-Jucge Bench case in Sri Rathrravarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla [AIR l96l SC 1299], held that: "26. In this coi.ltcxt. we have been commended to the,lecision in A. Narvab John and others y. V.N. Subramaniyam [QOl2) 7 .-sCC 7i8]. On a careliil perusal of the said l,:rcision. we find hat the said authority nowhere addresses the issue that is involred in thc caso at hand. p16p,s1 valuation of th,: sub.Ject matter o' under valuation is an aspect which can be contested by the dt:fendant. hut lhc said contest is timited. In thi; -.cgar.cl, the trvo JLrdge Bench has reproduced two passag,:r from Rathnavarmaraja v. Vimla IAIR 196l SC 1299] which we think secrl iv to reproduce: "2- "The Court Fee"- Act wos enacted to collecl revenut: for tlrc benefit q' thc Slatc antl not lo arm a contesting parl1, ..t,ith a weapon rtJ rlefbnce to obstruct the trtal of an actittt,., By recognizing that the dcfendant r,",as entitled to con.est the valuation ol the properties in dispute as if it were a n€ er in issue betwer:n him and the plaintiff and by ente l aining petitions prelerred by the defendant to the High Cor:rt in exercise cf its revisional jurisdiction against the order adjudging court t'ee pa1,.able on the plaint, all progress in the suit lor thr trial of the rlispute on the merits has been effrcrivelv \7 DT.GRR' J erp-1762 2019 frustratcd for nearly five ycars. We fail to appreciate what gricvancc the defendant can make by seeking to invoke thc revisional jurisdiction of the High Court on the question whether the plaintiff has paid adequate cou( fee on his plaint' -Welher proper courl fee is paid on a plaint is primarily a question between the ptaintdf and the Stote"- How by an order rclating to the adequacy of the court fee paid by the plaintifl thc defendant may feel aggrieved, it is diffrcult to appreciatc' Again, the jurisdiction in revision exercised by the High Court under Section t 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure is strictly conditioned by clauses (a) to (c) thereofand may be invoked on the ground of rcfusal to exercise jurisdiction vestcd in the subordinate court or assumPtion ofjurisdiction which the coun docs not possess or on the ground that the court has acted ittegatly or with material irregularity in the excrcisc of its juris<1iction. The delendant who may believe and even honestlv rhat proper court fce has not been paid by the plaintilf has still no right to movc the superior courts by appcal or in rerision against thc order adjudging payment ofcourt fee payablc on tlrc plaint. But counsel for the defendant says that by Act l'l ol 1955 enacted by the Madras Legislature which applied to the suit in question, the defendant has been invested r'r' ith a right not only to contest in the trial court the issue whether adequate court fee has been paid by the plaintiff, but also to move the Iligh Court in revision if an order contrary to his submission is passcd by the court. Reliance in support of that contention is placed upon sub-section (2) ofSection [2. ll. But "tlrj.s section only enables the defendttnt to tttisc o conlcntion as lo lhe proper court fee payable on a ploinl ud trt ossisl lhe courl in arriving aI aiust decision on lhal queslk"l" Our attention has not been invited to any provision o[ the ",, T;';ltii 18 Madra:, Court Fees Act or allv other statute wllich crrbles the defend;Lnt to rnove the Iligtr Court in revision a I rinst the dccisior of the court of first instance on the mattcr ol. ourt fee payabk in a plaint. 'Ihe Act, ir is true by Section I (r provides that for thc purpose ofdeciding rvhether the subject.r r.tter of the sui: or othcr proceetling has been properly vr luecl or whether thc fee paid is sufficient. the court may l,( ld r:nrc|l etlquiry as it co,sider.r propcr ond issue a commissitt,i to (mv olher per-son direcling hint ttt ntake such local r,: other Investig,ttion as may be nec€ssarv and report thereon. I.hc: s,,^,!rj ur rIl( regtstature to collect court fee due ,irrm litigant is manii-esi i'ronr rhe dctailed provisior: made in Chapter iti olthc Acr. hut thosc provisions do rrot rrm the dcfcndar.t rvitha rveapon ol technicality to obst_rrct the progress of the suit b,v approachtns thc I{igh Court in r.:.,,ision against ar order determininc the cour( lec payable.,, ^r -'- .n-i^i., '

16.2. and, held that: (emphasis s rrplicd) "27 . On a perusal of thc dccision in Ra(hnavarmaraja .r.Lrpra). wc find thc controvcrs_v had ariscn u,ith regard to rropcr vaiuation and thc stand of thc dclbndant was that the corrrt {.ee had not b:en properly paid an<1 in that context, the (i.Lrr has held what as rvc have rcproirtrced hereinabove. The issu r reing different, rhe said decision is distinguishable. We may r,:rrcratc that prope- r,aluation of the suit propcny stands on a dilrcrent footing th.n appricabiiity oI a particurar provision oi. rur Acr under whi.h court fce is pal'abrc and i. such a situati. r it is not correct to say that it has to be dctennined on the bir is ol. evidcnce altd it is a matter lor tho bcncfit of the revcnuc ulll the Statc and noi lo amt it conl estrng party with a rvcirl-r rr ol def'encc to obstruct thc trial of.an actiorr. [t is becausc tl r .Act 19 Dr.(iRR. J crp-1762-2019 empowers the delenclant to raise the plea ofjurisdiction on a diflerent yardstick."

17. ln the present case also, the leamed Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the payment of court fee is a mixed question of fact and law and thesamehastobedecidedonthebasisofevidence.Evidencewasrequiredto consider whether the "C" schedule property fell to the share ofdefendant No'I or plaintiff and if it lalls to the share of defendant No.l , it was defendant No' I , who should seek for cancellation of the document. If the property falls rvithin rhe share of ptaintiff-, then only he has the right to seek for cancellation"l he plaintiff was also a constructive party to the alleged documents and that the documentsrverebindinguponhimandassuchheshouldaskforcancellation under Section 37 ol the Act, 1956 on the entire value of the property' but not taking a notional value.

18. This Court does not accept the contention of the leamed Senior Counsel forthepetitionerwithregardtotheapplicabilityofSection3ToftheAct,l956. as the plaintiff is not a party to the said document and not sought fbr cancellation of the documents. He was only seeking the relief that the-v-' rvcre not binding uPon him.

19. In Sri Rathnavarmaraja v' Smt'Vimla case, the Hon'ble Apex Court hetdthatthematterofCourtfeewasprimarilyaquestionbetweentheplaintilT andtheStateandthede[endantwhobelievesthatproperCourtfeehasnotbeen \ -\ 20 D r.GR!-, -r crp-1762 2019 paid by the plainriff has no right to move the superior (. , rurts by appeal or in rEc si. iiiu oroer adjudging Court f_ee payablc on thc plaint. The feViSion ,(,r;'1cr +k^ ^-r- provisions of the Act do not arm the defendant with a wc:.1r.n of technicality to obstruct the progress of the suit by approaching the Hi,s r Couft in revision, against an order detennining the Court lee payable. 20' Thus' the defendant has no right ro fire rhis revisior: on the adjucgment made by the tnal c,:url ..vith rL.gard ro ihe payment ot Cour. fee payable on the plaint.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suhrid Singh alias Sardool Singh v Randhir singh and othcrs (cited supra) in a suit for deciar.rrion that sare deed executed by plaintif:,s father is null and void and fior joint f,ossession, held that lt was not a suit for <:ancellation or sale deed. Court f-ee .ecc ,)ot be paid on sale consideration menti.ned in sale deed and that the coun 1:.., was computable under section 7(iv)(c ) cf the court Fees Act, i g70 as ame.<r,,tr in puniah The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case obsen cd that: "7. In this case, therc is no pra1,sr fbr cancellation ol.tr.. salc deeds. The praver is lbr a dcclaration that the deeds do n r bincl the "copar,:encr1,,' and fbrjoint possessiorr. ihc plaintiil .t thc suit was not lhc exccutant ol thc salc dceds. -I.herclir r the court fee \ as computablc under secticn 7(ivlic) of ihe r\t r l_he trial courl and the ltigh Court u,ere rherclorc not jusriti .rl in holding that thc eflccr ol.the pra.r,er rvas to seek cancellarirrrr of. 2l Dr.GRR, J crp_17 62_2019 the sale decds or that therclbre court [ec had to bc paid on the sale consideration mentioncd in the sale deeds.

22. [n the present case also, the plaintiffhad not sought for cancellation ofthe documents executed by defendant No.1 in favor of all the other defendants, but only sought that they were not binding upon him. As cancellations can be sought only by the party to the document, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the trial court to set aside the same.

23. [n the result, the Civil Revision Petition ls dismissed confirming the order passed by the leamed II Additionat District Judge, Rangareddy District in I.A.No. 1264 of 20 l7 in O.S.No.29l of 2017 dated22.04.2019' No order as to costs. As a sequel, rnisccllatreous applications pending in this petition, iI any, shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHE. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \I \t\t v 1 2 3 4 The ll Additional District Jud se, Ranga Reddy at L Nagar One CC to Sri Ambadi pudi Satyanarayana, Ad vocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri M/S Resu Law Office, Advocate loPUcl Two CD Copies s) ABK/gh HIGH COURT uA I EIJ: UJtUOt ZUZS ORDER CRP.No.1762 of 2019 i s- a) (J 1 I tli 206 tl)j -,- * /./ DISMISSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS t +\