Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 410
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
Owners and Residents of Middle Income Group Units of Pondicherry - Appellant
Versus
The Pondicherry Housing Board & Another - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition (N.P.D.) Nos.1958 and 1959 of 2000
Decided On : 11 March 2004
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, particularly in relation to the valuation for court fees and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court for declaratory reliefs.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Pecuniary Jurisdiction - Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - [DECLARATORY RELIEFS] - [Section 25(d), Section 40(2)] - The court addressed the issue of correct valuation for court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction in relation to declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiff. The court examined the applicability of Section 25(d) and Section 40(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and considered the intangible nature of the rights being adjudicated upon. The court's decision emphasized the correct interpretation of the legal provisions and their application to the specific circumstances of the case, ultimately setting aside the trial court's finding on the payment of court fees.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought various declaratory reliefs related to housing scheme agreements and the pricing of houses. The defendant contested the valuation for court fees and the jurisdiction of the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the correct valuation for court fees and the pecuniary jurisdiction were crucial in determining the admissibility of the suits. It emphasized the applicability of specific sections of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act to the intangible rights being adjudicated upon.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the correct valuation for court fees and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court in relation to the declaratory reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, specifically Sections 25(d) and 40(2), and their application to the nature of the rights being adjudicated upon.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's finding on the payment of court fees and directed the trial court to dispose of both suits on all issues by a specified date.
The plaintiff in the suits O.S.No.195 and 196 of 1994 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry is the revision petitioner. Both the revision petitions have been directed against the common judgment dated 31.3.2000 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry made in the above suits with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the payment of court fees relating to the reliefs of (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi) claimed in O.S.No.196 of 1994 and (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) claimed in O.S.No.195 of 1994.
2. Both the suits have been filed by one Prof.P.K.Chidambaram as the President of the Residents Welfare Association representing the Owners and Residents of HIG Units and MIG Units of Pondicherry Housing Board, Lawspet, Phase II seeking several reliefs, viz., 7 in number for declaration that the contents of Clauses 24, 34 and 37 of the purported prospectus annexed to the printed application form of defendant Board as also clauses 14, 22, 25, 29 and 30 of the Hire Purchase Building Scheme Lease-cum-Sale Agreement as between the allottees of both units and the defendant Housing Board are void, ab-initio, inoperative and non-est in the eye of law and consequential permanent injunction from enforcing the said clauses; for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to demand and question the accounts leading to repeated enhancements of the price of the units allotted to the members of the plaintiffs and for consequential direction to submit the accounts of the scheme; for declaration that the letter of the defendant Housing Board dated 21.1.1994 demanding amounts from all the members of the plaintiff association is void, ab-initio and non-est in the eye of law and for consequential permanent injunction from enforcing the said letter and for declaration that the total cost and price of the houses of individual allottees of the plaintiff association is as declared by the defendant Housing Board to them at the time of delivery of possession of the respective houses in 1988 and for mandatory injunction.
3. Both the suits were resisted that both the suits are not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and if valued properly, the District Munsif Court may not have jurisdiction, besides several other contentions.
4. Both the suits were tried together and the evidence was recorded in O.S.No.195 of 1994. The plaintiff P.K.Chidambaram examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-30. On the side of the defendant Housing Board its Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer Mr.Spurgeon Gnanamutham was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-43 were marked. At the time of trial, the defendant Pondicherry Housing Board filed I.A.Nos.4964 of 1994 and 4965 of 1994 to try preliminary issues 1 to 5, in which an order was passed on 13.3.1995 by the trial Court. In the Civil Revision Petition preferred against that order, as per order dated 6.2.1996 made in C.R.P.Nos.1635 and 1636 of 1995, this Court directed the trial Court "To take up all the Issues together for trial and decide Issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 first and then proceed further in deciding the other Issues. Both parties are at liberty to let in oral and documentary evidence in order to substantiate their respective contentions. If on evidence the court below comes to the conclusion that the suit is not maintainable or proper court fee is not paid or the said court has no pecuniary jurisdiction, the court may pass order accordingly. If, on the other hand, the court decides that the said court has pecuniary jurisdiction and also the suit at the instance of the present plaintiff is maintainable, the court may proceed to decide the other Issues and give a finding on all Issues on merits and in accordance with law." Therefore, in accordance with the direction of this Court, the Issues 1, 2, 4 and 5 were tried as preliminary Issues by the trial Court and in recording finding in Issue No.1 as to "whether the District Munsif Court has got no
