Court fee for cancellation of property documents follows the document's execution value, not market value.

In a suit for cancellation of a document creating rights in immovable property, court fee under the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act is governed by the special valuation rule in Section 40(1), not the general market-value scheme in Section 7. The provision's deeming language indicates that fee is to be computed on the amount or value of the property for which the document was executed. The expression "market value" cannot be read into Section 40(1) when the legislature used that terminology elsewhere in the Act but omitted it here.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit for cancellation of a document creating rights in immovable property, court fee under Section 40(1) of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 is payable on the market value of the property or on the value of the property for which the document was executed.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Act lays down the general scheme for valuation where court fee depends on market value, but it begins with a saving clause and yields to a specific valuation provision. Section 40 is a special provision dealing with cancellation of decrees and documents. The wording of Section 40(1), especially the deeming clause that the value shall be the amount or value of the property for which the document was executed, shows that the legislature intended the value stated in the document, and not the market value of the property, to be the basis for court fee. The Court declined to read the word "market" into Section 40(1), noting that the legislature used that expression elsewhere in the Act but not here.

Conclusion: Court fee is payable on the value of the property for which the document was executed and not on its market value.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds because the lower courts applied the wrong valuation basis under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific mode of valuation for cancellation of a document, that special rule must be applied according to its plain terms and cannot be expanded by reading in market value when the legislature has not used that expression.

---