Computation of court-fee for suit for cancellation of sale deeds.

Petitioner presented a plaint in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Erode, praying for cancellation of the sale deeds executed by him on 20th August, 1962 and 1st February, 1967, in favour of the first defendant, on the ground that the defendants took him to Erode and provided him with intoxicating drinks and liquors and secured the documents. He correctly classified the claim as one falling under section 40 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, but paid the Court-fee on the amounts for which the sale deeds were executed. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge returned the plaint to the petitioner, directing him to value the suit property according to the market value on the date of the suit. Hence the petitioner has come forward with this revision petition.

Section 40 (1) of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is as follows:

“ In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be -

if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed;

if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.”

This is similar to section 7 (IV-A), which was introduced by the Madras Amendment to the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), which runs as follows:

“ In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document securing money or other property having such value,

according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such value shall be deemed to be -

if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or the value of the property for which the decree was passed or other document executed, if a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or value of the property.”

The only difference is in the place of the words “ or other document securing money or other property having such value” in section 7 (IV-A) of the old Court-fees Act, we have the words ‘or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest in money, movable or immovable property.......... “ Evidently this amendment has been made as there were several cases under the old Court fees Act as to whether even sale deeds and other documents with regard to property would fall under section 7 (IV-A) of the old Court-fees Act, as documents securing money or other property. In Bali Reddi v. Abdul Satar1, Venkatasubba Rao, J., has held that so far as sale deeds are concerned, they would, as he had already held in Doraiswami v. Thangavelu2, that they are documents securing other property within the meaning of the section. This is what he has observed in the earlier case:

” The words ‘securing money or other property ‘ are not happy; but the question is: Is this or is this not a suit for cancellation of a document securing property having money value ? I think it clearly is. I have no doubt that the release deed in question is a document securing property; in other words, by that documerit the property covered by it is made secure to the defendants. Can there be any doubt that a sale deed comes within the terms of this section ? "

In the Full Bench decision in Kutumba Sastri v. Sundaramma1, it was held under Courtfees Act (VII of 1870), as amended by Madras Act (V of 1922), that in a suit for cancellation of a deed of conveyance, which the plaintiff had executed and for possession of the land covered by it, the Court-fee is payable under section