N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the docket orders dated 13-5-2003 passed by the I additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy district, returning the suit O. S. No. 57 of 1993, filed by the plaintiff for payment of proper Court fee, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. ( 2 ) THE facts which led to the filing of the present C. R. P. may briefly be noted as follows: ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that the land in Sy. No. 57, situated in Shamshiguda village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, was owned and possessed by asmanjahi Paigah. The Government of andhra Pradesh appears to have appointed jagir Administrator under the provisions of the Hyderabad Jagir Abolition Regulation 1348 Fasli for deciding the Jagir properties under Regulation 5 thereof. The Jagir Administrator upon examination of the records held that the land covered by Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda Village is not a Jagir property. Though the Government of Andhra Pradesh by gazette notification, way back in the year 1953 invited objections to the declaration of the properties of asmanjahi Paigah as their personal properties, within six months, according to the petitioner, no objections were filed by the respondents. ( 4 ) THE petitioner states that the shareholders of Asmanjahi Paigah filed suit for partition of A1-Matruka immoveable properties in C. S. No. 7 of 1958 before this court, wherein the land in Sy. No. 57 was shown as item No. 252. In the said suit, though the Jagir Administrator and the finance Secretary to Government were arrayed as defendant Nos. 47 and 48, they did not file any written statement claiming the land in Sy. No. 57 as belonging to the government. The suit was decreed as prayed for 6-4-1959 and the same became final as no appeal was filed thereagainst. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the shareholders in C. S. No. 57 of 1958 executed deed of assignment in his favour, and this Court also approved the same and recognized his title to the property. On the strength of this order, the petitioner filed e. P. No. 38 of 2002 before the Court of the principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, seeking delivery of possession of the land in Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda Village. As directed by the learned Principal District judge, Respondent Nos. On the strength of this order, the petitioner filed e. P. No. 38 of 2002 before the Court of the principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, seeking delivery of possession of the land in Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda Village. As directed by the learned Principal District judge, Respondent Nos. 2 and 5, namely the deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, ranga Reddy District, and the Mandal surveyor, Balanagar Mandal, identified the land in Sy. No. 57 and delivered possession of Ac. 100-00 to the petitioner. When no objections were filed despite giving sufficient time, the learned Principal District Judge closed the E. P. on 23-1-2003. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondents never questioned the delivery of possession, which was made to him by reason of the order dated 23-1-2003 passed by the learned Principal District judge, and as per Article 128 of the limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner states that the suit should be filed within 30 days from the date of delivery of possession. It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted an application to respondent No. 4 namely mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, seeking mutation of the land in Sy. No. 57 of shamshiguda Village in his name under the provisions of the A. P. Rights in Lands pattedar Pass Book Act, 1989, but respondent no. 4 ignoring the finality attached to the judgment in C. S. No. 7 of 1958, issued memo dated 24-4-2003 stating that the land in Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda Village is gairan land and proposed to assign the same to third parties. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 has no power or authority to record that the land in Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda Village is gairan land, when once the Jagir Administrator had held that the same is not a Government land, and therefore, the Memo dated 24-4-2003 issued by respondent No. 4 is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner moved the i Additional District Judge by filing suit for perpetual injunction, which was returned by the order impugned in this CRP directing the petitioner to pay Court fee as required under Section 26-A of the A. P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short the CF and SV Act ). It is in these circumstances, the petitioner moved the i Additional District Judge by filing suit for perpetual injunction, which was returned by the order impugned in this CRP directing the petitioner to pay Court fee as required under Section 26-A of the A. P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short the CF and SV Act ). ( 7 ) AS can be seen from the pleadings in the suit, the petitioner-plaintiff is seeking relief of perpetual injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against the Government of Andhra Pradesh from interfering within his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the Court below has returned the suit directing the petitioner-plaintiff to pay court Fee on one half of the market value of the property in dispute under Section 26-A of the CF and SV Act. In the background of the above pleadings and submissions, the following points do arise for consideration in this C. R. P. : (a) Whether the plaintiff-petitioner, who is seeking perpetual injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief act, 1963 is entitled to determine the value of the suit at his own will? and (b) Whether on the basis of the contents of the plaint and other material annexed thereto, the Court can determine the value of the suit and direct the plaintiff-petitioner to pay the Court Fee as determined by it. ( 8 ) TO adjudicate the aforementioned two points, it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of Section 26 of the A. P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which deals with suits for injunction. The said Section reads: 26. ( 8 ) TO adjudicate the aforementioned two points, it would be expedient to refer to the provisions of Section 26 of the A. P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, which deals with suits for injunction. The said Section reads: 26. Suits for injunction: In a suit for injunction: (a) whether the relief sought relates to any inimoveable property, and where the plaintiffs title to the property is denied, fee shall be computed on one half of the market value of the property or on rupees two hundred, whichever is higher; (b) where the relief sought relates to the plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the court, whichever is higher; (c) in any other case, whether the subject- matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or at which such relief is valued by the Court, whichever is higher. ( 9 ) ON a plain reading of the above excerpted provision, particularly Clause (a) thereof, would indicate that if the relief sought for in the plaint relates to any immovable property, and if the plaintiff s title to the same is denied, the Court fee shall be computed on one half of the market value of the properly in dispute. Clause (c) is a residuary provision, and it applies to all other cases, which are not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of Section 26 of the CF and SV act. In the instant case, as can be seen from the averments made in the plaint and the other material annexed thereto, it is obvious that the plaintiff s title to the property has been denied. It is specifically averred in the plaint that respondent No. 4 issued a memo dated 24-4-2003 stating inter alia that the land covered by Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda village was a gairan land, and has been proposed to be assigned to third parties. It is specifically averred in the plaint that respondent No. 4 issued a memo dated 24-4-2003 stating inter alia that the land covered by Sy. No. 57 of Shamshiguda village was a gairan land, and has been proposed to be assigned to third parties. This memo had been issued when the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 seeking mutation of the land in dispute in his name in the revenue records as per the provisions of A. P. Rights in Land and pattedar Pass Book Act, 1971. It is obvious that not only the request of the petitioner to effect the mutation in revenue records has not been considered, nay the very title of the plaintiff to the property in question has been denied asserting that the property is a gairan land. These facts squarely attract clause (a) of Section 26 of the CF and SV Act. ( 10 ) ALTHOUGH the defendant has not filed the written statement and has not denied the title of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule land mentioning inter alia the same in the written statement but for the purposes of determining the Court fee to be paid on the plaint, the Court at that stage of presentation of the plaint shall have to see on a plain reading of the averments made in the plaint as to whether the plaintiffs title to the properly in question is denied or not. Sections 7 and 11 of the CF and SV Act need to be considered at this juncture. Section 7 ordains that the fee payable in accordance with the provisions of the CF and SV Act depends on the market value of the property, subject-matter of dispute and such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint. Section 11 of the cf and SV Act insofar as it is relevant for the purposes of this case may be excerpted hereunder thus: ( 11 ) DECISION as to proper fee : (l) (a) In every suit the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered decide on the allegation contained in the plaint and on the materials furnished by the plaintiff the proper fee payable thereon. (b) The decision of the Court under clause (a), regarding the proper fee payable shall be subject to review, from time to time, as occasion requires. (b) The decision of the Court under clause (a), regarding the proper fee payable shall be subject to review, from time to time, as occasion requires. (2) Any defendant may plead that the subject-matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before the hearing of the suit as contemplated by Order XVIII in the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908 ). If the Court decides that the subject-matter of the suit is not propely valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the Court shall fix a date before which the subject-matter of the suit shall be paid. If within the time allowed, the subject- matter of the suit is not valued in accordance with the Court s decision or if the deficit fee is not paid, the plaint shall be rejected and the Court shall pass such order as it deems just regarding cost of the suit. (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. It is clear from a perusal of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of CF and SV Act that the Court has to decide the proper Court fee payable on the plaint before directing the plaint to be registered. Such decision shall base upon the averments contained in the plaint and the materials furnished therewith by the plaintiff. This decision of the Court can be reviewed from time to time as and when occasion arises. Such occasion may be on the plea taken by the defendant inter alia in the written statement about the insufficiency or inadequacy of the Court fee paid on the plaint. This decision of the Court can be reviewed from time to time as and when occasion arises. Such occasion may be on the plea taken by the defendant inter alia in the written statement about the insufficiency or inadequacy of the Court fee paid on the plaint. A combined reading of sections 7 and 11 of the CF and SV Act makes it manifestly clear that the Court shall determine the Court Fee payable on the plaint by looking at the market value of the property in dispute as on the date of presentation of the plaint and for that purpose, the Court shall consider the averments made in the plaint and the other material annexed therewith, what is more required than the mandate contained in both the Sections referred to hereinabove. ( 12 ) THE legal position on the point is no more res Integra, and is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in Kondaiah v. Ramanareddy, AIR 1971 AP 142 , wherein a learned Single Judge held that the words "plaintiffs title to the property is denied" as mentioned in clause (a) of Section 26 of the cf and SV Act, did not include the denial made in the written statement and that the denial must be gathered from the averments made in the plaint alone and not from the written statement. ( 13 ) IN Ponnuswami v. Sinnana, air 1956 Mad. 52 , the Madras High Court was of the view that where in a suit for injunction relating to immovable property the only allegation was that the defendant was threatening the plaintiffs possession, the notification issued by the State government would not be attracted and the plaintiff could value the suit under section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court-fees Act. The said decision came to be rendered under the Court-fees Act, 1870. Section 7 (iv) (d) of the said Act prior to the issuance of the notification by the State Government, the plaintiff was free to put his own valuation which was not open to revision by the Court. Therefore, a notification was issued to the effect that the plaintiff could not value the suit at less than half the value calculated in the manner mentioned therein in a suit for an injunction upon the allegation that the defendant was threatening to disturb the plaintiffs possession of the property. Therefore, a notification was issued to the effect that the plaintiff could not value the suit at less than half the value calculated in the manner mentioned therein in a suit for an injunction upon the allegation that the defendant was threatening to disturb the plaintiffs possession of the property. Having regard to the fact that there was no such averment in the plaint, the Madras High court held that the notification had no application. ( 14 ) FROM the above discussion, it is obvious that the Court can at the stage of registering the plaint determine the fee payable on the plaint by arriving at the market value of the property in dispute as on the date of presentation of the plaint and by computing the fee in accordance with the averments made in the plaint and the material annexed therewith. ( 15 ) I, therefore, see no infirmity or material irregularity whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the Court below returning the suit filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for payment of Court fee as required by Section 26 (a) of the CF and SV act. The Court below was well within its power to determine the value of the suit and direct the plaintiff to pay the Court fee as deterrnined by it. ( 16 ) THE C. R. P. is devoid of any merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.