JUDGMENT : B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. This Appeal Suit preferred U/s.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’), by the plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 delivered in O.S.No.528 of 2006 on the file of I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arraigned before the learned Trial Court. 3. The suit was instituted for delivery of possession. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit, vide impugned judgment dated 30.07.2008. PLEADINGS: 5. The plaintiff asserts ownership of the scheduled property. The plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Vunnam Audilakshmamma, was the original owner of the property. She executed a registered settlement deed on November 8, 2005, bequeathing the property to the plaintiff. On October 14, 1995, she permitted the defendant to stay in the scheduled property on humanitarian grounds. The plaintiff issued a notice on August 17, 2006, demanding that the defendant vacate the scheduled property and deliver vacant possession by August 31, 2006. The defendant received the said notice and failed to deliver the possession. 6. The defendant, the wife of Sri V. Dasaradharami Reddy, alleges that the plaintiff, Sri Vunnam Dasaradharami Reddy, and another individual are brothers. She made an agreement to settle the plaintiff’s property claims in favour of the defendant but demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry. The defendant’s parents presented cash and gold as payment, but the plaintiff and other family members caused conflicts between the defendant and her husband. On 24.06.2002, Smt.V.Audilakshmamma executed a registered settlement deed in favour of Smt.V.Umamaheswari, bequeathing the suit property and delivering possession to her, against the defendant’s promise. However, Smt.V.Audilakshmamma has no title to the property and cannot execute a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff without cancelling the deed executed in favour of her daughter. This settlement deed will not convey any title to the plaintiff. Smt.V.Audilakshmamma filed a suit in O.S. 639/1997 for permanent injunction against the defendant, which was dismissed. She appealed in A.S.14/2002, which was also dismissed. Smt.V. Audilakshmamma, her daughter, and other family members beat the defendant and tried to dispossess her from the suit house. The defendant presented a report to the police, which led to the filing of a case before the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. ISSUES: 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1. The defendant presented a report to the police, which led to the filing of a case before the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. ISSUES: 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant? 2. Whether the Court fee paid is insufficient? 3. To what relief? EVIDENCE: 8. During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff was examined as P.W-1, while the defendant and her mother were examined as D.Ws-1 and 2. Four documents were marked for the plaintiff as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. Ex.A-1 is the registered settlement deed dated 08.11.2005. Ex.A-2 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 17.08.2006. Ex.A-3 is the postal receipt, and Ex.A-4 is the postal acknowledgement. The defendant filed two documents as Exs.B-1 and B-2, which are the voters’ list of Nellore Assembly Constituency for the year 1993 and the Nellore Municipality for the year 1986, as documentary evidence. 09. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented by both parties, the Trial Court refused the plaintiff’s request for a decree of possession. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree because, Smt.V.Audilakshmamma, has no authority to execute the settlement deed. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. 10. Heard Sri M.Ravindra, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri M.Radha Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNSEL: 11. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the trial court’s finding is not in accordance with law, in view of proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He contended that the defendant admitted the execution of the settlement deed, so there’s no need to prove its execution through the attesting witness. Ex.A-1 was executed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), and the defendant admitted its execution. Smt.V.Umamaheswari signed Ex.A-1 as an attesting witness, giving her consent. Therefore, the plaintiff acquired title to the suit property under Ex.A-1, and the defendant has no right, title, or interest in it. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession. 12. The defendant’s counsel argued that Smt.V.Audilakshmamma executed a settlement deed on June 24, 2002, bequeathing the suit property to her daughter, Smt.V.Umamaheswari. However, the plaintiff failed to file the deed. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession. 12. The defendant’s counsel argued that Smt.V.Audilakshmamma executed a settlement deed on June 24, 2002, bequeathing the suit property to her daughter, Smt.V.Umamaheswari. However, the plaintiff failed to file the deed. The plaintiff admitted to a covenant in the deed that the donor cannot revoke it unilaterally. There’s no recital in Ex.A-1 that daughter voluntarily consented to the deed’s revocation. She wasn’t examined to confirm this consent. Therefore, Ex.A-1 is invalid and won’t convey title to the plaintiff in view of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 13. The defendant specifically denied the execution of Ex.A-1 settlement deed in the written statement. Therefore, the attesting witnesses must be examined as per U/s.68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. However, the plaintiff failed to examine any attesting witnesses, hence Ex.A-1 was not proved. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and others Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai, 2020 (18) SCC 255 . 14. The defendant’s counsel argued that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for title and possession. A suit for possession alone is not maintainable in this case because the plaintiff’s title is unclear due to an earlier settlement deed. He relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and others, 2008 (4) SCC 594 15. The defendant’s counsel further argued that defendant has been in possession of the suit property and is entitled to protect it unless the plaintiff proves a better right. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and he cannot rely on the defendant’s weaknesses. The plaintiff failed to discharge his burden under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smriti Debbarma (dead) Through Legal Representative Vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others, AIR Online 2023 SC 18. 16. The defendant’s counsel argued that once a gift is accepted, it can’t be revoked unless there’s power of revocation. He relied on the Madras High Court’s judgment in Palaniswamy Gounder Vs.Periammal, 2003 SCC Online Mad 157. 17. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others, AIR Online 2023 SC 18. 16. The defendant’s counsel argued that once a gift is accepted, it can’t be revoked unless there’s power of revocation. He relied on the Madras High Court’s judgment in Palaniswamy Gounder Vs.Periammal, 2003 SCC Online Mad 157. 17. The defendant’s counsel would argue that the trial court found that the plaintiff should have paid court fees on three-quarters of the property’s market value, but failed to order the plaintiff to pay the remaining court fees. Since the plaintiff didn’t pay the deficit court fees, the appeal is not maintainable. ANALYSIS: 18. In light of the rival contentions stated above, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court in the appeal are as follows:: 1. Whether the plaintiff established his title over the plaint schedule property? If so, he is entitled to decree for possession? 2. Whether the order of the trial court regarding the payment of court fees warrants interference? 19. POINT No.1: The plaintiff claims that the property in question belongs to his mother, Smt. Audilakshmamma. She executed a settlement deed in his favour, transferring the title to him. The defendant, the wife of his brother, has been residing in the property since 1995, the date of their marriage. The plaintiff contends that his mother allowed her to stay for humanitarian reasons. 20. Smt.V.Audilakshmamma filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.613/1997 against the defendant to prevent her from interfering with her possession of the suit property. The trial Court dismissed the suit, and Smt.V.Audilakshmamma appealed in A.S.14/2002, but the appeal was also dismissed, confirming the trial Court’s judgment. 21. The plaintiff, examined as P.W-1, admitted that his mother executed a settlement deed on June 24, 2002, in favour of Smt.V.Umamaheswari. He also admitted that his mother, has not revoked it, and that the suit was not filed for its cancellation. 22. The plaintiff claims that Smt.V.Umamaheswari signed Ex.A-1 as an attesting witness. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that she must have attested to it since she consented to its execution in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant denied Ex.A-1 and the plaintiff’s case as false. 23. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove he has title to the property and is entitled to possession. The defendant can’t be dispossessed unless the plaintiff establishes a better title and right. The defendant denied Ex.A-1 and the plaintiff’s case as false. 23. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove he has title to the property and is entitled to possession. The defendant can’t be dispossessed unless the plaintiff establishes a better title and right. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smriti Debbarma (dead) Through Legal Representative Vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and Others held that “ the plaintiff shall establish title to claim a decree of possession. A person in possession of land in the assumed character as the owner, and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership, as a legal right against the entire would except the rightful owner. A decree of possession cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that defendants have not been able to fully establish their right, title and interest in the property. The defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession. The burden of proof to establish a title lies upon the plaintiff, as this burden lies on the party, who asserts the existence of a particular state of things on the basis of which she claims relief. The onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendants. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit.” 24. In the present case, it is admitted that Smt.V.Audilakshmamma executed a settlement deed dated June 24, 2002, in favour of her daughter, Smt.V.Umamaheswari. The deed contains a provision that prohibits the donor from cancelling it unilaterally. 25. Section 126 of the 1882 Transfer of Property Act allows for the suspension or revocation of gifts as under: 126. When gift may be suspended or revoked. The deed contains a provision that prohibits the donor from cancelling it unilaterally. 25. Section 126 of the 1882 Transfer of Property Act allows for the suspension or revocation of gifts as under: 126. When gift may be suspended or revoked. “The donor and donee may agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the will of the donor a it shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift which the parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part at the mere well of the donor is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.” “A gift also be revoked in any of the cases (save want or failure of consideration) in which, if it were a contract, it might be rescinded. Save as aforesaid, a gift cannot be revoked. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the rights of transferees for consideration without notice.” 26. Under section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a donor cannot revoke a gift once it’s been accepted, unless Donar has the power to do so. This principle was confirmed by the High Court of Madras in the case of Palaniswamy Gounder Vs. Periammal 27. In this case, there’s no evidence of consent by Donee to revoke the settlement deed and execute another in favour of the plaintiff. There’s no reference to the earlier settlement deed or its revocation by the donor with the consent of the donee, in Ex.A-1. In that perspective, the mere fact that the daughter signed as an attesting witness on Ex.A-1 does not convey any title to the plaintiff. 28. The existence of an earlier settlement deed casts doubt on the title of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff should file a suit for the declaration of title and the recovery of possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.Rs and others held that when a cloud arises over the plaintiff’s title and has no possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without consequential injunction, is the appropriate remedy. Therefore, the present suit, for possession alone is not maintainable in law. 29. In light of the above discussion, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for possession. 30. Therefore, the present suit, for possession alone is not maintainable in law. 29. In light of the above discussion, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for possession. 30. POINT No.2 The other issue in the appeal is the court fee paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for possession, paying the court fee under Section 28 of the APCF and SV Act, 1956. The plaintiff valued the suit property at Rs.11,49,000/- based on the market value certificate issued by the Sub Registrar Office, Nellore. Therefore, the plaintiff paid half of the market value, which was Rs.5,74,500/-. 31. The trial Court found that the property’s market value certificate states its value is Rs.11,49,000/-. The plaintiff paid the court fee under Section 28 of the APCF & SV Act, 1956, calculated on half of the market value. The learned trial judge further held that Section 28 of the APCF and SV Act, 1956, stipulates that in a suit for the possession of immovable property, the fee shall be computed on half of the market value of the property. This provision is in direct relation to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. 32. The defendant counsel argued that the Court Fee should be paid under section 24(a) of the APCF & SV Act, 1956, instead of section 28. 33. The suit is filed for possession of the property. No relief for declaration of title claimed. The plaintiff paid the Court Fee U/s.28 of APCF & SV Act, 1956. Section 28 of APCF & SV Act, 1956, is as under: 28. Suits for possession under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. “In a suit for possession of immovable property under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act 1 of 1877), fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on rupees two hundred, whichever is higher.” 34. The provision referred above pertains to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act 1 of 1877). The corresponding provision in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is Section 6, which is as follows:: 6. The provision referred above pertains to Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Central Act 1 of 1877). The corresponding provision in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is Section 6, which is as follows:: 6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property:— (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought— (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof. 35. If any person is dispossessed of immovable property without consent, other than in due course of law, such person can file suit to recover possession, regardless of title. In those cases, the Court Fee shall be paid under Section 28 of the APCF & SV Act, 1956. In suits for possession not otherwise provided for, the Court Fee shall be paid under Section 29 of the APCF & SV Act, 1956; 29. Suits for possession not otherwise provided for. In a suit for possession of immovable property not otherwise provided for, fee shall be computed on three-fourths of the market value of the property or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher. 36. In light of the above law, the fee shall be calculated on three- quarters of the property’s market value or Rs.300/-, whichever is higher. The property’s market value is undoubtedly higher than Rs.300. In that view, the Court Fee is payable on three-quarters of the property’s market value. The property’s market value, as certified by the Registrar of Assurance, Nellore, is Rs.11,49,000/-. Therefore, ¾ of this value is Rs.8,61,750/-, and the court fee to be paid on this amount is Rs.11,126/. But, the plaintiff paid only Rs.8,226/-, valuing the Court Fee as per section 28 of APCF & SV Act, 1956, instead of section 29 of APCF & SV Act, 1956. Therefore, ¾ of this value is Rs.8,61,750/-, and the court fee to be paid on this amount is Rs.11,126/. But, the plaintiff paid only Rs.8,226/-, valuing the Court Fee as per section 28 of APCF & SV Act, 1956, instead of section 29 of APCF & SV Act, 1956. Consequently, the plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.2,900/- (Rupees two thousand and nine hundred only). 37. The plaintiff must pay the balance Court Fee in four weeks from the date of this judgment. If he fails to do so, the State Government is entitled to recover it in accordance with law. Accordingly, the point is answered. 38. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 39. Registry is directed to send copy of judgment to the District Collector, Nellore, to take steps to collect the deficit court fee of Rs.2,900/- (Rupees two thousand and nine hundred only) from the appellant/plaintiff. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Appeal Suit, shall stand closed.