Point of law: Though Section 39 contemplates Court fees payable in respect of suits for specific performance, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners does not come within the scope of Section 39 of the Act and therefore Section 39 is wholly inapplicable for the purpose of valuation of the Court fee for the relief sought in the suit.

ORDER :

A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 24.7.2020 passed in OS (SR) No. 1626 of 2020 by the Court below upholding the office objection and requiring the plaintiffs to pay Court fee on the value of the document for cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney under Section 37(1)(a) of the Telangana Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (Adopted), (for short, "the Act"). Plaintiffs are petitioners herein.

2. The above suit (SR) was sought to be filed for the reliefs viz., damages of Rs. 1,46,63,000/-, cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, cancellation of Sale Deeds and for grant of consequential injunction.

3. In Para 11 of the plaint, the petitioners valued the suit reliefs as follows:

"11. Court Fee :-The plaintiffs value the suit for the purpose of the Court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 1,46,63,000/- being the value of damages (@ Rs. 3,41,000/- per month for 43 months) as per the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, which is sought to be cancelled and pays an ad-valorem Court fee of Rs. 1,49,126/- under Section 39 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act and also values for cancellation of 5 (five) documents at Rs. 10,000/- each amounting to Rs. 3,930/- under Section 24(d) of the Act and further values suit for consequential injunction at Rs. 20,000/- and pays an ad-valorem Court fee of Rs. 1,386/- under Section 26 of the Act which is sufficient and collectively pays a sum of Rs. 1,57,286/- through challan in State Bank of India, Hyderabad, which is sufficient."

4. It is seen that petitioners have not paid any Court fee for the relief of cancellation of Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney. Section 37(1)(a) of the Act which reads as under :

(1) 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:

(a) 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......"

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that though the petitioners are liable to pay Court fee under Section 39 of the Act, the Court below erroneously directed them to pay Court fee under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act, without following the ratio laid down by this Court in a decision reported in 2005 (4) ALD 800. This contention of the learned Counsel cannot be countenanced for more than one reason; firstly, the decision relied on, no relief for cancellation of document was sought so as to attract Section 37(1)(a) of the Act. In that case the suit was filed for specific performance of the Development Agreement under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and though a relief was sought for recovery of possession of the land, and the suit filed for specific performance filed by the Developer therein being allowed, the possession will be handed over to the owner after construction of the building as per terms therein, therefore, the facts therein are totally different and distinct and not applicable to the facts of this case. Secondly, no Court fee is paid for cancellation of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, which is otherwise payable under Section 37(1)(a) in respect of suit of cancellation of other document which purports or operates to create any right in the party seeking cancellation. Whether the plaintiffs are seeking damages from the other party or not is immaterial, once a document creating a right in them having money value is sought to be cancelled, Court-fee is liable to be paid under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act, which is the relevant provision.

6. The other contention of the learne