( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a Judgment and Decree passed by the I Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 4164/1986, which happened to be a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession. One of the issues that the Trial Court framed on the basis of the pleadings before it related to the sufficiency of the Court Fee paid on the plaint filed by the appellant. While dismissing the suit on merits, the Trial Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient and that the plaintiff is liable to pay the same on the market value of the suit property, which value was held to be at Rs. 65/- per sq. ft.

( 2 ) IN the present appeal filed against the said Judgment and Decree, the Office has raised two folded objections. The first objection relates to the non-filing of the certified copy of the decree sheet of the Trial Court, while the second objection relates to the non-payment of Court fee on the Memo of appeal.

( 3 ) APPEARING for the appellant Mr. Kumar argued that the Trial Court had declined to draw up a Decree till such time the appellant deposited the deficit Court fee before it. The non-production of the certified copy of the decree was in that view explained and could not constitute a valid objection according to learned Counsel. On the question of the appellant's liability to pay Court fee, Mr. Kumar strenuously argued that the suit had to be valued in terms of Section 24 read with Section 7 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. He contended that in cases where the prayer made in the plaint is for declaration and for possession of the property to which the declaration relates, Court fee has to be computed on the market value of the property or Rs. 1,000/- whichever was higher. The market value of the property was in turn to be decided in terms of Section 7 of the Act. He drew our attention to Section 7 (2) (b) to argue that where the suit land was an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, the market value of the property shall be deemed to be twelve and a half times the revenue so payable. The land in the instant case, according to Mr. Kumar-was a definite share of an estate assessed to land revenue with the result that the market value of the said land had to be by fiction of law equivalent to twelve and a half times the revenue payable for the same. The Trial Court was, according to the learned Counsel, in error in holding that the payment of Court fee in terms of Section 24 read with Section 7 (2) (b) was insufficient and in determining fee on the actual market value of the land assessed by reference to the norms fixed by the registering authority.

( 4 ) SINCE the issue that arose for consideration related to payment of Court fee, we had by our Order dated 09. 12. 2003 issued a notice to Smt. Shobha Patil, Government Advocate in charge of civil matters. Mrs. Patil who appeared in response to the said notice has drawn our attention to the Provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. She in particular relied upon Section 4 of the said Act which inter alia deals with inclusion and exclusion of areas in or from a 'larger urban area'. She submitted that since the suit land had admittedly come within the Bangalore Municipal Corporation limits in terms of a notification issued much earlier to the filing of the suit, consequences of such inclusion would in terms of Section 4 (4) follow. It was contended that one of the consequences, which Section 4 (4) of the Karnataka Municipal Act, 1976 envisages is the application of all taxes levied under the Act or under any other law for the time being in force to the additional area so added. With the inclusion of the suit property in the Corporation limits, the liability if any which the owner of the land may have had towards payment of land revenue ceased and the property became subject to taxes and levies appl