ORDER
Bilal Nazki, J.
1. This is a revision filed against an order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. Defendant wanted the plaint to be rejected on the ground that sufficient Court-fee had not been paid by the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of a document, which is a sale deed. The value of the property, according to the sale deed, is Rs. 12,00,000/-. The plaintiff filed the suit claiming one-seventh share in the property. He prayed in the suit:
'(a) to pass a decree that the registered sale deed dated 13.6.2003, registered Document No. 344/03 at SRO, Mangalagiri, executed by Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of 7th defendant is Sham, nominal and collusive, null and void and it cannot restrict the rights of plaintiff in respect of 1/7th share in favour of her father's half share of undivided plaint schedule property;
(b) for cancellation of the document;
(c) to partition the plaint schedule property in 7 equal shares and one such share to the plaintiff and to deliver and put her in separate possession of the property;
(d) for mesne profits from the date of suit till the dale of realization;
(e) to award costs of the suit; and
(f) to pass all necessary reliefs in theinterest of justice'.
2. Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear that the plaintiff did not claim the whole property, which was sold by the sale deed, which was challenged before the Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that since the property had been sold for Rs. 12,00,000/-and the document, i.e., the sale deed, was challenged by the plaintiff, therefore, he was bound to pay Court-fee on an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- in terms of Section 37 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956.
4. Section 37 of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 lays down:
'37. Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc.:--(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;
(b) If part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or of value of the property.
(2) If the decree or other document is such that the liability under it cannot be split up and the relief claimed relates only to a particular item of property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's share in any such property, fee shall be computed on the value of such property, or share or on the amount of the decree, whichever is less.
Explanation :--A suit to set aside an award shall be deemed to be a suit for cancellation of a decree within the meaning of this section'. .
5. Section 37(1)(b) and Section 37(2) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 make it abundantly clear, on bare perusal, that if a party challenges a document and claims only a share in the property he can pay Court-fee only with respect to that share. From the prayer made in the suit, it is clear that the plaintiff had only claimed one-seventh share in the property. He challenged the document as, according to him, it was Sham. Therefore, without getting a declaration with respect to the document he could not claim a share. But, Section 37(1)(b) and Section 37(2) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 make it clear that he was required to pay the Court-fee on the share he claimed. Therefore, in my view, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. The civil revision petition is dismissed.