The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the Court below, instituted the suit for cancellation of a settlement deed executed by her on nth May, 1965, on the ground that it had been procured by fraudulent misrepresentation. In the settlement deed, she had valued the properties settled at Rs. 10,000. Taking this valuation as the basis, she paid a Court-fee of Rs. 750-50 under section 40 (1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. The learned Ninth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, upon a construction of section 40 (1) of the Act, held that in the case of document securing property having money value, the suit should be valued upon the market value of the property as on the date of the plaint, and not on the basis of the value set out in the settlement deed. Accordingly, he directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court-fee after furnishing the market value of the property as on the date of the plaint. It is against this direction that the plaintiff has preferred this revision petition. I think it fruitless to refer to the conflicting authorities cited at the Bar in support of either view; firstly, because the ratio decidendi in each of the authorities cite