ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit in OS (SR) No. 6034 of 2018 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. As the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta did not issue the market value certificate, he notionally assessed the value of the suit schedule property at Rs. 10,00,000/- and paid the Court fee as per the said notional value. The Trial Court, while not accepting the notional value assessed by the plaintiff for the purpose of payment of Court fee under Section 24(b) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for brevity 'the Act'), returned the plaint with the following endorsement, by granting fifteen days time:

"This Court considered the plaint averments only to accept the valuation and returned the plaint to file market value certificate in order to take decision on the jurisdiction of this Court, basing on the certificate of the market value under Section 24(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. Explain how Court can accept the notional value fixed by the plaintiff under Section 24(b)."

Aggrieved by the above endorsement, the plaintiff filed the present revision.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner applied for issuance of market value certificate, the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, made an endorsement stating that the survey number, in which the suit schedule property is situate, i.e., Sy. No. 242 of Tiruchanur Village, is classified as endowment land and no value is fixed by the market value committee. He submits that the plaintiff enclosed said endorsement, alongwith the plaint and thus complied with the mandatory requirement of enclosing a certificate under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Rules, 1987. He submits that as the competent authority has not fixed the market value of the suit schedule property, the petitioner/plaintiff, notionally valued the plaint schedule property at Rs. 10,00,000/- and paid the Court fee on the said notional value. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, in Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, (1987) 4 SCC 69, learned Counsel submitted that valuation of suit made by plaintiff according to his own estimation of the relief claimed by him, has to be accepted by Court, unless it is arbitrary, unreasonable and deliberately underestimated. He submitted that in the present case, the Court has not found that the valuation made by the plaintiff is arbitrary, unreasonable or deliberately underestimated. Therefore, in such circumstances, the value estimated by the plaintiff, has to be accepted. Relying on another judgment of the Apex Court in Suhrid Singh v. Randhir Singh, 2010 (5) ALD 94 (SC) = (2010) 12 SCC 112, learned Counsel submitted that in a suit for declaration and for consequential relief, Court fee has to be calculated in reference to averments in plaint. Learned Counsel further submits that at the stage of numbering the suit, sufficiency or other wise of the Court fee paid, cannot be gone into, and the plaint averments and the documents in support of the plaint, are only decisive, and after appearance, pleadings of the defendants can be considered in deciding the sufficiency of Court fee. In support of this contention, learned Counsel relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Pranit Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Goundra Yadaiah, 2014 (6) ALD 232 : 2015 (1) ALT 352. With these contentions, learned Counsel sought to set aside the impugned endorsement.

3. In the present case, the suit schedule property is in Sy. No. 242 of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati. Petitioner claims that the Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, has issued the certificate stating that the land in Survey No. 242 of Tiruchanur Village, is classified as endowment land and no value is fixed by the Market Value Committee. Therefore, by notionally assessing the value, the plaintiff paid the Court