Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question which the Court is called upon to consider in this case is whether in a suit for the cancellation of a deed of conveyance and for possession of the property the plaintiff should value his relief in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(iv)(a) or those of Section 7(v) of the Court-Fees Act. The plaintiff in this case filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenali for a decree setting-aside a conveyance which he had executed and for possession of the land covered by the deed, pleading that he had been induced to sign the instrument as the result of undue influence and fraud. On the basis that the plaint fell for the purpose of valuation within para, (v) of the section he affixed a stamp fee of the value of Rs. 34-13-0. The District Munsiff considered that para. (iv)(a) applied, which meant a court-fee of Rs. 119-15-0. Para. (v), as amended by the Madras Act of 1922, requires that in a suit for the possession of land the relief shall be valued at ten times the annual revenue payable to Government where such revenue is settled but not permanently; and that is the position here. By the amending Act para. (iv)(a) wa