The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper valuation and payment of court fees, and the need for the suit to be filed before the Court having competent jurisdiction.

1. This second appeal has been brought by the defendant being aggrieved by the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court decreeing the suit when the trial Court dismissed the same.

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein for declaration to declare that the charge dated 01.10.1990 against the document registered as 1282/1990 in Volume 314/1990, Book 1, Sub Registrar of Assurance, Karaikal has been discharged by waiver and for a consequential injunction to direct the defendant / appellant to execute and register with the Office of Sub Registrar of Karaikal a document of such nature to evidence that the above fictitious and unreal charge is fully discharged and with further direction to the defendant / appellant herein to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit.

3. Brief facts leading to the second appeal is as follows:

(i) The plaintiff/respondent herein has purchased the suit property from the defendant by virtue of a sale deed dated 01.10.1990. At the time of executing the sale deed, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was retained as a charge to enable the plaintiff to get possession of the premises occupied by M/s. A.M.S. & Brothers and as per the conditions stipulated, the defendant has to evict M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from the suit property and obtain the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-was retained with a condition that the defendant has to evict M/s. A.M.S. & Brothers within a period of one year and thereafter, to get back the amount. The said condition was objected to by the defendant / appellant herein. As a result, the defendant refused to sign in the sale deed.

(ii) After a compromise talk held between the plaintiff's representatives and the defendant, it was represented that the said recital was written on two stamp papers of the value of Rs.5,000/- each and if the recitals are scored, the said stamp papers of value of Rs.10,000/- will become waste and the plaintiff's husband also sentimentally felt that any score in the sale deed, at the first instance, may give rise to further delay. Therefore, after a compromise talk, the plaintiff asked for apology for their mistake and also agreed to execute a separate agreement agreeing to evict the portion by herself. Accordingly, another agreement on the very same day, namely, 01.10.1990 was executed and the same was also handed over, agreeing to evict the tenant at her responsibility and also she agreed to pay any sum, if any, to the tenant while securing eviction and till such time, the tenant is vacated, the defendant was entitled to collect the rent from M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from October 1990 onwards. Therefore, as per the agreement, the plaintiff herself has to take steps to vacate the tenant, since Rs.2,00,000/- was already retained by her and till the tenants are vacated, it was agreed that the defendant would collect the rent from M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers and thereafter, the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid back to the defendant.

(iii) Finally, the tenant M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers were vacated by the plaintiff/respondent herein on 22.09.1997. After recovery of the suit property, on successful eviction of M/s.A.M.S. & Brothers from the suit property, the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- having become time barred because of the bar of limitation on 01.11.1994, the wrong entry made by the Sub Registrar, Karaikal, as if the balance of sale consideration in the encumbrance certificate continues, had to be deleted, in as much as the defendant / appellant herein had also refused to execute and register a receipt of discharge for the alleged debt for the reason that the defendant / appellant had lost his right to claim from the plaintiff / respondent, the alleged amount of Rs.2,00,000/-which he had himself deposited with the plaintiff at the expiry of 01.10.1990 and the entry should be declared as non est and the defendant / appellant should be compelled to take steps to delete the entry. On that basis, the pla