Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In my opinion, the view of the Court-fee Examiner and the decision of the District Munsif supporting that view, are clearly wrong. There is a distinction between the getting rid of a document to which a person is a party and one to which he is not. The plaintiff in the suit complains that the sale-deed was forged by the defendant, that in spite of his objection, the Registrar directed its registration and he prays that the instrument may be declared to be a forgery.

2. When a person impeaches a deed as having been forged, to refer to him as being a party to it, is an obvious misuse ofss words. Mr. K. Subba Rao, who supports the lower Courts view, contends that the provision applicable is Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act, which runs thus:

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 the other document exe