M.S. Ramachandra, J.

This Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31-07-2012 in O.S. No. 324 of 2011 of the Principal District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

The Suit

2. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the above suit. They filed the said suit against respondent Nos. 1 to 143 for the following reliefs:

(a) for a perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the plaint schedule property and also not to alienate the same to any third party; and

(b) to declare 107 registered sale deeds and agreements of sale-cum-GPAs mentioned therein which were registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District as null and void.

3. The subject matter of the suit is an extent of Ac.39.11 gts. in Sy. Nos. 310, 311 and 312 of Budwel village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. The petitioners valued the relief of perpetual injunction notionally at Rs. 18.00 lakhs and the relief of declaration to declare the above documents as null and void also at Rs. 18.00 lakhs and paid court fee thereon.

The Application Under Section 11 (2) of Respondent Nos. 1-7.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein who are defendant Nos. 99, 100, 109 to 113 filed I.A. No. 3373 of 2011 under Section 11 (2) of the AP Court Fee and Suit Valuations Act, 1956 (for short `the Act') praying the Court below to decide the correctness of the valuation and Court Fee paid by the petitioners insofar as the relief of declaration that the 107 documents (mentioned in the plaint) are null and void is concerned.

6. They alleged that the petitioners had grossly under valued the suit schedule property showing that its entire value as only Rs. 20.00 lakhs; that although this Court had issued instructions on the administrative side to subordinate District Courts to ensure that parties filed market value certificate issued by the concerned Sub Registrar/Registrar, to ensure that correct payment of Court Fee is made by a litigant, and to prevent under valuing of suit claims, the petitioners did not enclose the market value certificate of the concerned Sub Registrar along with the plaint; in fact as per a market value certificate obtained by the respondent Nos.1 to 7, the market value of the suit schedule property is Rs. 47,52,27,500/-, but the petitioners have not paid court fee on this basis; and since the suit claim is under valued, it amounts to playing fraud on the Court and the plaint should be thrown out. They contended that although an objection as to valuation of the reliefs was initially raised by the Court below, subsequently the said objection was heard by the Court below and not pressed by it, but later at the instance of the respondent Nos.1 to 7 who objected to the valuation, the Court permitted the suit to be registered "subject to objection". They contended that even as per the averments in the plaint, the petitioners did not prove the paramount title and ownership of late Haider Ali Mirza as regards the suit schedule property even though the petitioners are claiming through him, that they also did not produce any document in support of their above plea and so the petitioners are bound to seek relief of declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property under clauses (a) or (b) of Section 24 of the Act. They contended that the relief of declaration that the documents in favour of defendant Nos.9 to 144 are illegal, null and void virtually amounts to seeking cancellation of the said documents and the petitioners ought to have valued it under Section 37 of the Act. It is further contended that by trick of pleading, the petitioners had grossly under valued the suit and misled the Court below to grant relief of declaration of title without valuing it under Section 24 (a) and/or (b) of the Act and they cannot rely on Section 24 (d) of the Act. They therefore contended that the ma