(V.V.S. Rao, J.)

The appellant, M/s.Lakshminagar Housing Welfare Association, filed the suit being O.S.No.1978 of 2006 (hereafter, first suit) on the file of the Court of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 22.8.2005 being registered document No.6816 of 2005 with Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, Ranga Redy District, and consequential permanent injunction restraining defendants in the suit from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the Association. The said Association also filed O.S.No.1986 of 2006 (hereafter, second suit) before the same Court, seeking decree to cancel registered sale deed dated 22.8.2005 being registered document No.6815 of 2005 with Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, and consequential perpetual injunction against defendants therein. Defendants in the first suit filed I.A.No.88 of 2008 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) to return plaint for presentation before jurisdictional Court. The same was allowed and the Court below directed return of plaint for presentation before proper Court and the Association was also directed to pay proper court fee as per the market value of the schedule property. Against the said order dated 25.11.2008, CMA No.1590 of 2008 is filed. Defendants in second suit also filed I.A.No.60 of 2008 for return of plaint, which was also allowed on 25.11.2008 against which CMA No.1589 of 2008 is filed.

The matter was listed before a learned Single Judge, who referred the matter to the Division Bench for deciding correctness of decision in Allam Venkateshwara Reddy v Golla Venkatanarayana AIR 1975 AP 122 and an unreported decision in Mettu Neelamma v M/s.Prithvi Constructions CRP No.5005 of 2005, dated 26.9.2005.. Though the question is not specifically referred and the entire case is referred to this Bench, the point falls for consideration is the following.

“In view of Sections 7 and 37(1)(a) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act, 1956, in suits in respect of immovable property or cancellation of document relating to such immovable property, whether court fee has to be paid on the market value of schedule property or on the value of the property for which document was executed?”

At the outset, it is necessary to briefly refer to the allegations of the plaintiff in the suit, which we have taken from O.S.No.1986 of 2006 pertaining to CMA No.1589 of 2008. The land admeasuring Acs.7.00 in survey No.163 of Hydernagar village of Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, formed part of item No.38 of Schedule-IV in C.S.No.14 of 1958 on the file of High Court for partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 28.6.1963. Nizam of Hyderabad purchased undivided interest in the said property and transferred half share in favour of M/s.Cyprus Investments Private Limited, Bombay, who was impleaded as defendant in C.S.No.14 of 1958. Survey No.163 fell to the share of defendants 18, 26 and 107 to 112, who sold the same along with M/s.Cyprus Investments to Kazim Nawz Jung. He transferred the same in favour of appellant Association under an assignment deed dated 30.10.1991. Appellant Association plotted about Acs.2.07 guntas and allotted to 36 members. These transactions are approved by the High Court. But on 22.8.2005, defendants 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2 in CMA) entered into sale transaction with defendants 4 and 5 and executed sale deed being document No.6815 of 2005 to an extent of Acs.1.10 guntas. Therefore the suit was filed for cancellation of said document valuing the suit at Rs.5,00,000/-. Be it noted in the other suit, the land demised under impugned sale deed admeasuring Acs.1.22 guntas was valued at Rs.7,00,000/- and the court fee was paid accordingly. After receiving summons, defendants in both the suits filed interlocutory applications under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for rejection of plaint, as the Court of Senior Civil Ju