The guideline value is not the market value of the property and cannot be used to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court.

This appeal is against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge Sankari, in A.S. No. 16 of 1993 returning the plaint for presentation in the proper Court on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction for the trial Court.

2. The appellant therein filed the suit for declaration and possession against the respondent defendant before the district Munsif, Tiruchangodu. The suit was valued at Rs. 10,000/- for which the Court-fee was paid under Section 25A of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees Act. Though the defendant, in the written statement, contended that the suit has not been correctly valued and that the learned District Munsif had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, this was found against him, by the trial Court. The suit was decreed in toto and an appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, though the learned Subordinate Judge, had agreed with the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and possession, he has found that the value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Tirucheng0du, and therefore the trial by the learned District Munsif was not proper. On that finding he returned the plaint for presentation in the proper Court. Hence, this appeal.

3. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff under a sale deed Ex. A.1 dated 16-11-1983 for Rs. 10,000/- and the suit a filed by the plaintiff within three months after the said sale. Therefore, on the basis of the value given in the sale deed, the plaintiff valued the suit property at Rs. 10,000/-. But in the sale deed Ex. A.1 while giving the description of the property, it is mentioned that the market value of the property is Rs. 28.300/-. In the Annexure form 1.A of the sale deed also, the same value is given. Therefore, the learned subordinate Judge, taking the view that though the sale price under the sale deed was only Rs. 10,000/- as the market value of the property is described at Rs. 28300 in the very same sale deed, it has to be taken that this is the correct market price and as it exceeds the jurisdiction of the District Munsif, Tiruchengodu, he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge also has referred to the anterior title deed for the suit property which is marked as Ex. A.21 dated 10-6-1976, which mentions the sale consideration of Rs. 25,000 only, though in that document also, in the description of property, the market value is given at Rs. 46,400/-. On the basis of this anterior title deed also as the suit property is one half of Ex. A.21 and the sale was seven years after Ex. A.21 sale deed. The learned Subordinate Judge viewed that the suit property must be worth more than Rs. 28,000/- on the date of the suit and therefore, the District Munsif, Tiruchengodu, had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sokar contended that the value given at the foot of the description of property in the sale deed Ex. A.1 as well as Ex. A.21 the guideline value as found in the register maintained by the Registering Officer and as the registration charges are being collected according to the guideline value the writer of the documents gives the guideline value at the foot of the description of the property and this value does not represent the actual market value of the property. In Ex. A.21, though the property was sold only for Rs. 25,000/-, in the description of property, the market value is described at Rs. 46,400/ -. Similarly in Ex. A.1 also though the property was sold for Rs. 10,000, in this document also, at the foot of the description of property, the market value is shown at Rs. 28,300. If really the market price of the property was at Rs. 46,400 and Rs. 28,400/- as described in Exs. A.21 and A.1, there was no necessity for the vendors under these documents to sell these properties for nearly one half of the market price. There is nothing to say that they were duress sales, compelling the owners