Open market value has no relevance.

1. Plaintiff in O.S.No. 34 of 1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Pudukottai is the revision petitioner.

2. Suit filed by petitioner is one for declaration’ of his title and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in his possession.

3. At the time of when the suit was instituted, there was only three defendants. First defendant already filed his written statement on 29. 1994. Thereafter, first defendant sold the property and the purchaser was impleaded as additional 4th defendant as per order in I.A. No.541 of 1996 dated 9. 1997.

4. In the written statement filed by first defendant, he has not taken any objection regarding court-fee payable on the plaint. On the basis of purchase and after his impleadment, 4th defendant filed written statement, where he took objection regarding valuation of suit. Thereafter, he filed I.A. No.360 of 1997 to test the value of the suit property by a senior bailiff and basing his value with reference to the guideline of Registrar, maintained in the Joint Registrar’s office and also the actual market v alue on the date of suit and collect deficit court fees if any and decide the jurisdiction.

5. I.A. No.360 of 1997 was seriously opposed by plaintiff, who contended that 4th defendant who is only a purchaser pending suit, is not entitled to put forward an objection regarding court-fee and at any rate the application is not maintainable even as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

6. By the impugned order, lower court held that since the property is situated in Pudukottai Junction, it must be very valuable and therefore, it is highly necessary that the property should be valued as prayed for by 4th defendant. The application was allowed by the trial court, which is challenged in this revision petition.

7. After hearing both sides, I feel that the impugned order is passed without understanding the legal provisions under Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the same is perse illegal.

8. Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suit Valuation Act reads thus. “12(3) -A defendant added after issues have been framed on the merits of the claim may in the written statement filed by him plead that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient. All questions arising on such pleas shall be heard and decided before evidence is recorded affecting such defendant, in the merits of the claim, and if the court finds that the subject matter of the suit has not been properly valued or that the fee paid is not sufficient, the court shall follow the procedure laid down in Sub-section (2).”

9. An explanation has been added to sub-section (3) of section 12, which provides, that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a defendant has been added as successor or a representative in interest of a defendant who was on record before issues were framed on the merits of the claim and who had an opportunity to file a written statement pleading that the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued or that the fee paid was not sufficient.

10. By virtue of the explanation it is clear that only the successor of defendant or representation in interest of a defendant cannot object to the valuation if defendant already on record has not raised any objection. A person who has taken sale deed from defendant is an assignee and therefore cannot be considered as successor or representative in interest of defendant. Purchaser is not representing original defendant since he is representing his own interest. He is also not successor and interested in defendant since his right is based on the document executed by defendant. In that view of the matter, contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the explanation to Section 12 (3) is a bar for filing the interlocutory application cannot be accepted.

11. But on merits I find that the lower Court has ignored th