In a suit for possession of documents of title, the court fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or of the market value of the property secured by the document where the plaintiff's title to the money or the property secured by the document is denied.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal district Munsiff, Vijayawada, passed in O. S. 785 of 1975 dated 18-10-1975 holding that the court fee paid by the plaintiff on the l/4th of the market value of the promissory notes is correct under Section 23 (2) (a) of the andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that i view of the decision of this court in Ramachandraiah V. Lakshmidevamma (1) (1965 (1) An. W. R. 138) it is necessary that the court-fee is to be paid on the market value of the promissory note itself but not on the l/4th of the value of the promissory note. In that decision even the correctness of the decision of the Madras High Court in Venkat Rao V. Sesharatamma (2) (A. I. R. 1934 Madras 730) was also not decided.

( 3 ) IT caa be noted that in Ramachandraiah V. Lakshmidevamma s these is no discussion with regard to Section 23 (2) (a), of the Andhra court Fees Act. That Section reads as under:-"in a suit for possession of documents of title, fee shall be computed on one-fourth of the amount or of the market value of the property secured by the document where the plaintiffs title to the money or the property secured by the document is denied. Provided that where such denial relates only to a portion of the amount or property fee shall be computed on one fourth of such portion of the amount or on one fourth of the market value of such portion of the property". The language of this section is very clear. There is no ambiguity left in the language, that if a suit for possession of the document of title is filed, fee has to be computed only on l/4th of the amount or of the valuation of the property secured by the document where the title to the money or the property secured by the document is denied. In this case the defendant denied the exclusive title to the promissory notes of the plaintiff. Thus there is a clear denial of the title of the plaintiff to the promissory notes by the defendant. In such circumstances the provision of section 23 (2) (a) is clearly attracted. Therefore the court-fee paid by the plaintiff in my view was correct.

( 4 ) WHAT is sought to be argued is that the observation made in ramchandraiah v. Lakshmidevamma s case would indicate that court fee has to be paid if the promissory note has got a market value and therefore the advalorem court-fee has to be paid on the market value. In that judgment a Bench of this court was dealing with the provisions of section 39 (c) and Section 47 of the Court-fees Act, in a suit filed for specific performance of a family arrangement. In the alternative, there was also a prayer for declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to 2/-th share in the properties, and to the entirety of the promissory notes which were not standing in the name of the plaintiff. Even in that judgment their Lordships referred to the decision in Venkat Rao v. Sesharatamma (2) (AIR 1934 madras 730) and held that it was a case where the basis of the claim was that the plaintiff was the real payee. Admittedly, the documents were not in the name of the plaintiff and the relief claimed was only traceable to the arrangement said to have been entered into between the parties after the death of their father. In that context their Lordships were pleased to hold that it was not necessary for them to consider the correctness of the decision in Venkat Rao V. Sesharatamma 2 (AIR 1934 Madras 730 ). It was clearly distinguished that the facts in Ramachandraiah v. Lakshmidevamma s case were not applicable to the- facts of Venkat Rao v. Sheshartamma s case and therefore the proposition laid down in the Madras case was not applicable to that case. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there was nothing stated in the Judgment of the Bench holding that the view taken in Venkat Rao v. Sesharatamma s case was in any way wrong. Their lordships simply observed that it was not necessary for them