ORDER : M. Venkata Ramana, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of learned VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam , in I.A. No. 1524 of 2016 in O.S. No. 804 of 2015 dated 21.11.2017. 2. The petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition being the defendants except the 7th defendant filed I.A. No. 1524 of 2016 in the suit under Section 11(2) of ACF & SV Act read with Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC to determine and decide the correctness of valuation of the suit in relation to Court Fee paid thereon as a preliminary and primary issue with reference to relief of declaration sought for four registered GPAs as vitiated by fraud being invalid and non est under law and not binding on the plaintiff - 1st respondent. 3. The first respondent instituted the suit against the revision petitioners and one Sri Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana (Respondent No. 4) as well as respondents 2 and 3 for the following reliefs: "a) for a declaration that the four General Power of Attorneys (doc. no. 643/2015, 644/2015, 645/2015 and 646/2015) are vitiated by fraud, invalid/non est and not binding on the plaintiff; b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 8 from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; c) for a permanent injunction restraining the District Registrar and the Sub Registrar, (defendants 9 and 10) from Registering any documents with the aid of the said four false General Power of Attorneys bearing number 643/2015, 644/2015, 645/2015 and 646/2015 d) for costs of the suit." 4. The property in dispute is described in the plaint schedule as follows: "Land measuring an extent of Ac. 10.30 2/3 cents of land situated in Marripalem & Kapparada villages of Visakhapatnam in the following S. Nos. 59/1p; 41/1p (new) 32(old) or 42/4p (new); 66/1; 66/2; 66/3; 66/4; 57/3p; 57/4p; 57/5p; 58p, and 59/3p within the following boundaries for the entire site as a whole. East: Land belonging to M/s. Lakshmi Techno Solutions (P)Ltd. South: Bapuji Nagar Colony West: Municipal Road and Jyothi Nagar North: National High Way." 5. The first respondent has set out its claim as an incorporated company in the activity of manufacturing electric transformers with its unit located in the property referred to above (it shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the suit property'). The first respondent has set out its claim as an incorporated company in the activity of manufacturing electric transformers with its unit located in the property referred to above (it shall be referred to hereinafter as 'the suit property'). Its further claim is that it has purchased totally an extent of Ac. 21.27 2/3 cents under various sale deeds since the year 1962 till 1965 and has been in its possession and enjoyment as rightful owner. While referring to several acts of possession in the plaint and as a lawful owner with valid right, title and interest, the first respondent also asserted that these petitioners along with respondent No. 4 - Sri Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana, with an intention to grab this property without any manner of right brought out fabricating four powers of attorney, which are registered documents bearing Nos. 643 to 646 of 2015 dated 23.02.2015. 6. As seen from the averments in the plaint, its contention is also that if these powers of attorney remain outstanding against its interest, it would suffer serious loss, while facing threat of dispossession leading to unnecessary litigation. 7. The relief valued for the purpose of jurisdiction and for payment of Court fee is set out in the plaint as under: "(a) The value of the suit for the purpose of declaration is Rs. 16,00,000/- and C.F. Rs. 18,426/- is paid thereon under Section 24(d) of the A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act. (b) Value for the purpose of permanent Injunction against D1 to D8 is Rs. 10,000/- and C.F. Rs. 786/- is paid as per Section 26(c) of the AP CF and SV Act (c) Value for the purpose of permanent Injunction against D9 and D10 is Rs. 10,000/- and C.F. Rs. 786/- is paid as per Section 26(c) of the AP CF and SV Act. Total Rs. 16,20,000/- C.F. Rs. 19,998/- 8. On behalf of the first petitioner, a written statement is filed adopted by other petitioners including Sri Bagadi Lakshmi Narayana seriously disputing and assailing the claim of the first respondent setting out independent source of title and further claiming possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As seen from the written statement, one of the contentions of the petitioners is that the suit is not properly valued and it is undervalued mischievously, evading calculation of court fee in a proper manner. As seen from the written statement, one of the contentions of the petitioners is that the suit is not properly valued and it is undervalued mischievously, evading calculation of court fee in a proper manner. Thus, it is one of the grounds set up by the petitioners, to non suit the first respondent. 9. The predominant contention of the petitioners now is on the above premise. They further contended that though the requirement is to produce a valuation certificate issued by competent sub-registrar at the time of registering the suit, it was not produced and inspite of such deficiency, the plaint was allowed to be registered as suit. The petitioners also contended that the suit land is worth Rs. 24,000/- per square yard, as per Market Value Register entries maintained by office of Sub-registrar, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam and that they also obtained a market value certificate dated 21.1.2015 issued by this office of Sub-Registrar, for this purpose. On such basis, according to the petitioners, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee in terms of Section 24 (a) and (b) of ACF & SV Act, is as follows: "DETAILS OF VALUATION Total extent of suit schedule property Ac. 10.30 2/3 cents, when converted into Square yards will be 49440 square yards. Each square yard cost of Rs. 24,000/- as per market value certificate i.e., (Rs. 24,000/- X 49440 sq. yards) Rs. 118,65,60,000-00 3/4th market value of the property Rs. 88,99,20,000-00 And C.F. payable under Section 24 (a) & (b) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, 1956 will be Rs. 89,04,626/- (Rupees eighty nine lakhs four thousand six hundred and twenty six only)." 10. Thus, the petitioners contended that the first respondent is liable to pay a Court Fee of Rs. 89,04,626/- upon valuing the suit property at Rs. 88,99,20,000/-. 11. It is also the contentions of the petitioners that requesting a declaration with reference to four GPAs in question, is a camouflaged relief mischievously valued under Section 24(d) of ACF & SV Act, though the real purpose of filing the suit is for declaration of its right, title and interest to the suit property. According to the petitioners, the suit should have been valued for the purpose of Court Fee under Section 24(a) and (b) of ACF & SV Act. The petitioners also invoked Section 37(1)(a) of ACF & SV Act apart from valuation sought for regular declaratory decree. According to the petitioners, the suit should have been valued for the purpose of Court Fee under Section 24(a) and (b) of ACF & SV Act. The petitioners also invoked Section 37(1)(a) of ACF & SV Act apart from valuation sought for regular declaratory decree. 12. The first respondent resisted this petition filing a detailed counter denying the claim of the petitioners. It asserted that the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court Fee, while contending that it has been in effective possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a matter of right, legally. It is also the contention of the first respondent that plaint averments alone should be taken into consideration for the present purpose and having regard to nature of relief sought, the declaratory relief has to be valued notionally. Thus, it is contended for the first respondent that in terms of Section 24 and 37 of ACF & SV Act, the suit has been properly valued paying appropriate Court Fee thereon. Thus, application filed under Section 11 of ACF & SV Act is questioned by the first respondent. 13. Considering the material on record including the pleadings as well as submissions on behalf of the parties, learned trial Judge observed that the suit has been properly valued and proper Court Fee has been paid calling for no interference. Ultimately, the petition so filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the impugned order. 14. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the first respondent addressed arguments. 15. Now, the point for determination is, "Whether the suit is properly valued with reference to the relief sought and proper Court Fee has been paid by the first respondent?" 16. In terms of Section 11(2) of ACF & SV Act, payment of proper Court Fee shall be determined by the Court and it is a subject matter for decision in a suit. In case, it is not properly valued and if the Court Fee paid is not sufficient, the Court is under obligation to decide such question on hearing the parties. 17. It is settled law that for the purpose of assessing and ascertaining Court Fee payable in respect of relief, the averments in the plaint alone should be considered. In case, it is not properly valued and if the Court Fee paid is not sufficient, the Court is under obligation to decide such question on hearing the parties. 17. It is settled law that for the purpose of assessing and ascertaining Court Fee payable in respect of relief, the averments in the plaint alone should be considered. Even if the defendants raised an objection in respect of it, they should point out any deficiency in this context basing on the averments in the plaint alone. Though both the learned counsel in the course of hearing were in agreement on this aspect, nonetheless Sri V. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel relied on SURJIT KAUR GILL AND ANOTHER v. ADARSH KAUR GILL AND OTHERS : (2014) 16 SCC 125 and BHANU RAM v. JANAK SINGH AND OTHERS : (2012) 8 SCC 701 . 18. The reasons set out by the first respondent in the plaint to lay the suit for the relief claimed, is in para 3(f) as under: "(f) The defendants 1 to 8 launched a diabolical plan to grab the property belonging to the Plaintiffs taking advantage of the amendment to the Stamp Act in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which permits registration of documents at a low value, if both the parties to the Deed are related to one another. The defendants falsely & fraudulently created and got registered the following four registered General Power of Attorneys claiming to be relatives of one another with document numbers; 643, 644, 645 and 646/2015 all dated 23.02.2015." 19. Thereafter, certain averments are brought out pointing out the alleged nature of powers of attorney in question, while seriously assailing the right, title and interest of the petitioners. At the same time, it has also asserted its right, title and interest in the suit property. For the present purpose, it is also necessary to refer to certain other averments in the plaint. They are in para III (i): "(i) The plaintiff submits that there is an impending threat to their title and also possession and enjoyment of the property from the Defendants 1 to 8 with absolutely created documents the defendants are attempting to enter into the property and also execute further deeds with the GPAs. They are in para III (i): "(i) The plaintiff submits that there is an impending threat to their title and also possession and enjoyment of the property from the Defendants 1 to 8 with absolutely created documents the defendants are attempting to enter into the property and also execute further deeds with the GPAs. The intending purchasers will be mislead by the false paper trail that the defendants have created and if such deeds are registered basing on these GPAs the plaintiff will suffer serious loss, will face threats to their possession and will have to face many litigations etc. The plaintiffs humbly submit that this is the fraud of epic proportion and unless the same is stopped at the very outset it can lead to dangerous consequence. Hence the suit for the reliefs mentioned. The defendants 9 and 10 are added as a relief of injunction is sought against them restraining them from registering any further document basing upon the 4 fake GPAs." 20. In para III (h) of the plaint, it is also averred likewise. 21. Basing on these averments and nature of relief sought, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the apparent purpose in instituting the suit is to get a declaration as to right, title and interest by the first respondent and by way of intelligent drafting, effort is made to camouflage the relief as if declaration is sought only with reference to nature of powers of attorney and not otherwise. 22. There is substance in this contention. However, Sri V. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel contended that when the relief requested by the first respondent is only for the purposes pointed out in the plaint, no other inference can be drawn and averments in the plaint are supportive of the nature of relief sought and not otherwise. 23. A number of contentions were advanced on behalf of both the parties referring to application of Section 37 of ACF & SV Act as well as Section 24(a), (b) and (d) of the said Act. Further reference is also made as to application of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act to construe the nature of the documents vis-à-vis relief, that can be requested there under. Contentions are also advanced by both the learned counsel as to capacity and status of the parties, to question the nature of documents. Further reference is also made as to application of Section 31 of Specific Relief Act to construe the nature of the documents vis-à-vis relief, that can be requested there under. Contentions are also advanced by both the learned counsel as to capacity and status of the parties, to question the nature of documents. In this context, status of the parties is also referred to either being parties to the documents or transaction or strangers to a document. 24. On behalf of the first respondent, in this context, reliance is placed in POLAMRASETTI MANIKYAM AND ANOTHER v. TEEGALA VENKATA RAMAYYA AND ANOTHER : (2014) 5 SCC 603 , SUHRID SINGH ALIAS SARDOOL SINGH v. RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS : (2010) 12 SCC 112 , DECCAN PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. v. REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES AND OTHERS : (2020) SCC 655, while referring to effect of application of Order VII Rule 11 CPC relying on C. NATRAJAN v. ASHIM BAI AND ANOTHER : (2007) 14 SCC 183 . Further reliance is placed in M. MANI v. P. LATHA AND OTHERS, a judgment of Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 2448 of 2012 dated 13.09.2012. ALLAM VENKATESWARA REDDY v. GOLLA VENKATANARAYANA AND OTHERS: AIR 1975 AP 122 is also relief on for the same purpose. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is place in one of the judgments of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in DEBI PRASAD AND OTHERS v. MAIKA AND OTHERS : AIR 1972 ALLAHABAD 376. 25. Competence of the first respondent to question the nature of the powers of attorney is subject matter of the suit. It cannot be decided at this stage. In fact, when a question for consideration is in terms of Section 11 of ACF & SV Act, it has to be considered only as a collateral action for such purpose than addressing the core question. Therefore, when the core question is in relation to nature and effect of GPAs in dispute, it is desirable to relegate this question for the purpose of determination, after the parties let in evidence in the course of a full-fledged trial. It is not desirable to consider this question at this stage. 26. Therefore, when the core question is in relation to nature and effect of GPAs in dispute, it is desirable to relegate this question for the purpose of determination, after the parties let in evidence in the course of a full-fledged trial. It is not desirable to consider this question at this stage. 26. Even though Section 11 of ACF & SV Act requires the Court to consider a question relating to payment of Court Fee and also for the purpose of valuation as a preliminary and primary issue, when there are serious disputed questions of fact, which influence final decision in the suit ultimately as to nature of the relief sought, the Court is entitled to consider the matter at a later stage than in terms thereof. When such is the situation, on an application filed by the petitioners, the trial Court could have consider such question after settling appropriate issue in respect thereof than summarily deciding on an application under Section 11 of ACF & SV Act. Having regard to the nature of the averments pointed above in the plaint and their effect, with reference to valuing the suit, which are seriously disputed by the petitioners, the trial Court could have settled an issue therefor. Therefore, in view of these circumstances, it is rather desirable to direct the parties to contest upon framing an issue with reference to valuation of the suit and Court Fee paid thereon. 27. Learned trial Judge considered the contentions of the parties and ultimately held that the relief so valued is proper and that there is no need to pay any further court fee. In view of what is stated above, there was no necessity for the Court to record such finding in fact and it could have postponed consideration of such question inviting the parties to enter upon trial, setting an appropriate issue. 28. In this context, it should also be borne-in-mind that the petitioners in the written statements have questioned the frame of the suit and its structure. When such question has to be considered in the trial, the trial Court should take into consideration the question of value of the relief and the Court Fee paid thereon. 29. 28. In this context, it should also be borne-in-mind that the petitioners in the written statements have questioned the frame of the suit and its structure. When such question has to be considered in the trial, the trial Court should take into consideration the question of value of the relief and the Court Fee paid thereon. 29. In the above circumstances, finding that there is no reason for the petitioners to approach the trial Court in terms of Section 11(2) of ACF & SV Act, read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC, this Civil Revision Petition has to be dismissed, subject to above observations. 30. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to settle an issue in respect of frame and structure of the suit as filed and also with reference to valuation of the relief in the suit and Court Fee paid thereon. Dismissal of I.A. No. 1524 of 2016 by the trial Court by the order dated 21.11.2017 in the suit and dismissal of this CRP by this order, shall not come in the way of the trial Court to consider the above issue upon both the parties leading necessary evidence or placing necessary material. The trial Court shall decide such an issue independently, without being influenced by any of the observations in the order in I.A. No. 1524 of 2016 dated 21.11.2017 or in this order. No costs. Pending petitions if any, stand closed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.