SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 848

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Sundarrajan and Others - Appellant
Versus
Vellai Vinayagar Koil and Others - Respondents
C.R.P.No. 2233 of 2000 and C.M.P.No. 12153 of 2000
Decided On : 28 August 2000

Appearing Advocates:P. Subramaniam, Advocate.

It is for defendants to establish that correct court-fee was not paid by plaintiff.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act (XIV of 1955), Sec.25 (a) - Non-payment of court0fee - It is for defendants to establish that correct court-fee was not paid by plaintiff.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal orders passed on O.S.No. 295 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tirukoilur dated 7-6-2000 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners in I.A.No. 494 of 1999 raising preliminary objection with reference to the inadequacy of Court-fee paid.

2. The short facts are these :-

(a) Vellai Vinayagar Koil Sri Balasubramania Swami Koil through its Executive Trustee filed a suit in O.S.No. 295 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Tirukoilur for declaration that the suit property belongs to the temple and for recovery of possession of the same after removing the superstructure and also for damages for use and occupation.

(b) The petitioners/defendants filed written statements raising various pleadings inclusive of the plea that the valuation of the Court-fee in the suit is not in consonance with the market value and therefore, the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court.

(c) When the trial commenced, two applications in I.A.Nos. 493 and 494 of 1999 were filed requesting the trial Court to raise additional issue with reference to the jurisdiction on the basis of the inadequacy of the Court-fees and to hold enquiry separately with regard to the said issue and accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and during the course of enquiry, Exs. B-1 to B-3 were marked by the defendants. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court by order dated 7-6-2000 overruled the objection and held that the valuation of Court-fee is correct and as such, the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. This order is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition by the petitioners/defendants.

3. When the Registry questioned maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C., as there is no provision in the Madras Court-Fees and Suits Vauation Act or other statute which enables the petitioner to move the High Court by way of Revision on the matter of Court-fees payable on a plaint, on the strength of a decision of the Supreme Court in Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, the papers were represented by the counsel for the petitioners stating that the question of payment of Court-fee is not the matter in dispute and the question would relate to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable.

4. The Registry, having not satisfied with the endorsement made by the counsel for the petitioners, placed the papers before this Court to decide about the maintainability. This Court directed the Registry to number it and to post the same before this Court to enable this Court to hear the counsel for the petitioners both on the question of maintainability and on the merits of the order impugned. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition was numbered and posted before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners is heard on both points.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that there is no material placed by the plaintiffs to prove that the suit property is an agricultural land, whereas the defendants/petitioners herein have marked three documents Exs. B-1 to B-3 which would estbalish that the property in dispute is a house site and is valued more than Rs. 2 Lakhs and therefore, the trial Court will have no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

7. In the light of the above submissions, the main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the valuation of the court-fees had not been done properly and the value of the land in question would be more and as such, the trial Court will have no jurisdiction.

8. Under those circumstances, let me decide as to the maintainability of the Revision.

9. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to some of the decisions decided on this point.

10. In Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, it is held as follows (Paras





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top