Koshy, J.

Whether market value of the property should be taken for calculating court fee when a suit is filed to set aside a gift deed is the question referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge. Section 40 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (in short the) deals with valuation of suits in such cases. The court below in the impugned order, following earlier Division Bench decisions of this court held that when a suit is filed to set aside a gift deed as one obtained by fraud and misappropriation, court fee is to be paid on the basis of the real market value on the date of filing of the suit as contemplated under Section 7(3A) of the. The above was challenged by the writ petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that in the earlier Division Bench decisions, Section 40 was not correctly interpreted. In Krishnan Damodaran v. Padmanabhan Parvathy (1972 KLT 774), Appikunju v. Meeran Pillai (1964 KLT 895), Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon (1981 KLT 763) and Jamy Kuriakose v. Jomon Kuriakose (2003 (1) KLT 411 [LQ/KerHC/2002/653] ) this court had held that, in a suit filed for setting aside a document, the court fee is to be paid on the market value of the property covered by the document on the date of filing of the suit. It was also argued that the provisions contained in Section 40 are self contained and the court cannot look into the provisions contained in Section 7 for computing the court fee payable under Section 40 of the. Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the above point was not considered in the earlier decisions and observed as follows:

"In view of the wordings in Section 40 of the Act, whether in a suit for setting aside a document, the plaintiff can be compelled to value the suit as provided under Section 7(3A) of the Court Fees Act is a matter to be considered by a large Bench."

2. Before answering the question, we may quote the relevant sections. Section 40 reads as follows:

"Suits for cancellation of decree, etc.

(1) In a suit for cancellation of 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

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;

If a part of the decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, such part of the amount or 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 or property belonging to the plaintiff or to the plaintiffs 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 to set aside a decree within the meaning of this section.

Section 7 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act reads as follows:

"Determination of market value.- (1) Save as otherwise provided, where the fee payable under this Act depends on the market value of any property, such value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(3A) The market value of any property other than agricultural land and building falling under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be the value it will fetch at the time of the institution of the Suit and where the plaintiff estimates such market value it shall not be less than the minimum value of such land fixed by the District Collector under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959."

(4) xxx xxx xxx."

Section 7 of thethough deals with determination of market value, it starts with a saving clause. A reading of Section 7(1) makes it clear that if there is a specific provision in the for valuing the suit, the sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 7 can have no application. According to the counsel for the petitioners, Section 40 is an independent provision for valuation of suits for cancellation of decrees and documents and in view of Section 7(1), market value of the property is not a criteria at all. Whenever market value of the property is to be taken into account, it is specifically stated in the statute. Sections 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 37, 38, 45 & 48 etc. specifically provide that market value of the property involved in the suit is to be taken as basis for valuation. But, the word market is conspicuously absent in Section 40. When the section is plain and unambiguous, courts should not venture to add words to it to give an entirely different scope to the said provisions never intended by the legislature. Therefore, it was argued that concept of market value of the property cannot be brought into Section 40. Learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2001) 4 SCC 534 [LQ/SC/2001/792] ( Paragraph 26) and Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Others v. State of T.N. and Others (2002) 3 SCC 533 [LQ/SC/2002/350] ( Paragraphs 14 and 15). It is true that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences. The rule stated by TINDAL, C.J. in Sussex Peerage case, (1844) 11 C1 & F 85, p.143) is in the following form: "If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves do alone in such cases best declare the intent of the lawgiver."

3. Here, the question is what is clearly stated in Section 40 as the criteria for valuation of suit filed for cancellation of a document. Section 40 of themandates that if a suit is filed for canceling a document which creates, assigns or extinguishes the right, title or interest in an immovable property, if the whole document is to be cancelled, the value of the property for which the document was executed and if plaint is only to cancel part of the document, such part of the value of property for which document was executed is the basis for suit valuation. Therefore, value depends on the value of property for which document was executed and sought to be cancelled and not the value mentioned in the document. Here, a gift deed is sought to be cancelled. Then on a plain meaning of Section 40, suit should be valued at the value of the property for which gift deed was executed and not the value of the document or value mentioned in the document. If a gift deed is executed out of love and affection, which is a valid consideration, suit valuation depends upon not on estimation of value of love and affection or null value, but, on the value of the property covered by the gift deed. Then the question is what is the value of the property at the time of filing the suit. In legal terms value of property means market value of property and when valuation is considered with regard to suit valuation, it can only be market value of property at the time of filing the suit and nothing else. Section 7(1) clearly states that except otherwise provided, court fee payable under the depends on the market value determined on the date of presentation of plaint. No contrary indication is made in Section 40.

4. In Vasudeva Rao v. Hari Menon (1981 KLT 763) a Division Bench of this Court has held that under S.40 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, in suits to set aside sale deeds in respect of immovable property court fee has to be paid on market value of the property on the date of the suit. In that judgment the Division Bench has observed as follows:

"The Decree sought to be set aside or the other document required to be cancelled may not be for money but for other property having money value, movable or immovable. In such cases the plaintiff seeks to get rid of his liability in respect of that property under the Decree or other document as the case may be. The value of the subject matter of the suit here is the value of the property - not that mentioned in the Decree or other document but actual value thereof or in other words, the market value as on the date of suit. Value in this context means the just money - equivalent or the worth of the property in terms of the currency of the land, as on the date of suit."

We fully agree with the above observation and there is no need to change the accepted principles respectfully followed for more than three decades (starting from Damodaran v. Parvathy (1972 K.L.T. 774 (D.B.)). Hence, we hold that when a suit is filed for canceling a gift deed or sale deed or other document which purports or operates to create, assign, limit or extinguish any right or title in respect of immovable property, suit valuation under Section 40 is based on the market value of the property, for which document was executed, on the date of filing suit. Reference is answered accordingly.

The writ petition is dismissed. Time for payment of balance court fee is extended by 30 days from today.