Interference by High Court with the order of lower court called for.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The subject-matter of challenge in this civil revision petition filed before this Court by the plaintiffs 2 to 6 (1st plaintiff since deceased), the petitioners herein, is the fair order and decretal order dated 12-10-1995 made by the learned District Munsif, Tambaram, in I. A. No. 1593 of 1994 in O. S. No. 1036 of 1993 upholding the preliminary objection raised by the first defendant, the respondent herein on finding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for suit properties has not been properly valued, as the suit properties have to be valued as house sites.

2.

"It is unfortunate that long years have been spent by the Court below on a combat between two parties on the question of court-fee leaving the real issues to be fought between them to come up leisurely. Two things have to be made clear. Courts should be anxious to grapple with the real issues and not spend their energies on peripheral ones. Secondly, the court-fee, if it seriously restricts the rights of a person to seek his remedies in Courts of justice, should be strictly construed. After all access to justice is the basis of the legal system. In that view, where there is a doubt, reasonable, of course, the benefit must go to him who says that the lesser court-fee alone be paid."

3. The observation given above is made by the Apex Court in the decision in Lakshmi Ammal v. K. M. Madhavakrishnan, while the similar issue had cropped up for consideration. In my considered opinion, the above observation would apply in all fours in the present case.

4. The petitioners are the plaintiffs 2 to 6. The plaintiffs filed a suit in O. S. No. 1685 of 1989 on 30-8-1989 for declaration of title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee. Later on, it was transferred to District Munsif's Court, Chengalpattu, where it was numbered as O. S. No. 145 of 1991 and later to District Munsif's Court, Tambaram and numbered as O. S. No. 1036 of 1993.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties are Nanja lands in old Paimash Nos. 586, 557 and 558 corresponding to new Survey Nos. 70, 85, 71/1 and 71/2 measuring in all 1.16 acres in Shrotriam Adambakkam village, that the said properties were originally purchased by the father of the plaintiffs Ponnuranga Naicker from Dharmalinga Naicker, the second defendant, that after the said Ponnuranga Naicker died, the plaintiffs moved to other places, that as absentee landlords, the plaintiffs could not cultivate the suit lands profitably, even though they were engaging some local people for doing the cultivation operations, and that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, the first defendant trespassed into the plaintiffs' lands and enclosed the same by putting up fencing. It is further mentioned in the plaint that Dharmalinga Naicker, the second defendant earlier filed a suit in O. S. No. 779 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Poonamallee against the first defendant in respect of some portions in the same survey numbers and the same was already disposed of.

6. According to the first defendant through his written statement, the earlier suit in O. S. No. 779 of 1975 filed by the second defendant Dharmalinga Naicker for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for mandatory injunction, was dismissed and, therefore, the present plaintiffs have been set up by the said Dharmalinga Naicker to file this suit. However, it is further stated in the written statement that the first defendant has nothing to do with paimash No. 586 or paimash No. 557, that he had purchased the lands bearing paimash No. 558 measuring 0.6.0 and paimash No. 620 measuring 0.12.0 and also a portion in paimash No. 558/1 measuring 1.45 cents from A. S. Perumal Naicker and that ever since the date of his purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. In para 18 of the written statement he also mentioned