Relief being claimed for a tangible property, valuation done is correct.

1. Against the order made in Check Slip Nos. 518/xxiv/S in O.S.No. 434 of 1993, 517/xxiv/S in O.S.No.433 of 1993 and 519/xxiv/S in O.S.No.435 of 1993 dated 12. 1996, on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukottai, the above CRPs have been filed.

2. The petitioners in all these three revisions have filed three different suits on the file of the District Court, Pattukottai for declaration and injunction with respect of their ownership as ancestral rights and by valuing the suit property under section 25 (b) of the Tamilnadu Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act. The lower court has raised an objection by way of check slip stating that Hie relief claimed is an intangible right. The petitioners filed their objections Stating that both the warrams under the Inam Abolition Act, 1963 are with them and that no rent is paid to anyone. However, the learned District Munsif by order dated 9. 1996 allowed the check slip objection and directed the petitioners to pay the court fees accordingly. Aggrieved by the same, the above three revisions have been filed by the respective plaintiffs.

3. The respective suits have been filed for the relief of declaration and injunction with respect of the suit property claiming ownership as ancestral ryot since the village in which the suit lands are situated had been taken over under Tamil Nadu Act 26 of 1963. The court below misconstruing the concept of ryot Act 26 of 1963 erroneously reasoned that the petitioners have claimed an intangible right and hence the suits ought to have been valued under Section 25 (d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The reasoning of the court below is materially irregular, illegal and liable to be set aside. In the plaint, the details of the valuation has been clearly given as under "It is stated that the suit lands are not assessed to revenue as they are classified as Poramboke though erroneously. As the Poramboke lands are incapable of valuation, the plaintiffs notional valuation of his relief sought for is Rs. 11,520 and Half of its value is Rs. 5,76 which is higher than the minimum prescribed under section 25 (b). A court fee of Rs. 432.00 is paid under section 25 (b) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act."

4. To the check slips issued by the office, objections were filed by the respective plaintiffs as follows:

.(1) This is a suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction for the suit property. This is not the suit for declaration of the rental rights of the plaintiff. The suit village is Iruwaram Inam village. There is no Melwaram or Kudiwaram. The ryots are holding Iruvaram rights. Hence there is no question of payment of rent to anybody. Hence the citation M. Shahul Hameed v. Kanda Iyer and another, 1967 (2) MLJ 536 is not applicable to this case.

.(2) The relief claimed under section 25 (b) of Court Fees Act is correct. Hence the check slip may be dropped and render justice.

I, the plaintiff herein declare that the particulars given above are all correct and true to the best of my knowledge belief and signed this at Pattukottai."

5. As rightly pointed out in the objection, the present suit is not a suit for declaration of the rental rights of the plaintiff. The suit village is an Iruwaram Inam village and there is no Melwaram or Kudiwaram. The ryots are holding Iruwaram rights. Hence, as rightly contended by the plaintiffs there is no question of payment of rent to anybody. The citation relied on by the office reported in M. Shahul Hameed v. Kanda Iyer and another, 1967(2) MLJ 536 is not also applicable to this case because the said decision was based on rental rights. The lower Court has also overlooked the fact that the petitioner had earlier filed O.S.No.521of 1992 and others for the self same relief which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit in order to specify the correct extent of the suit property and agitate their rights to the entire extent. Even in the earlier suit, the valuation was done under Section 25 (b) an