Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 66
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
K. Chinnathurai
Versus
Allimuthu & Others
CRP (PD) No. 937 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006
Decided On : 05-01-2007
For the Petitioner:AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for AL. Ganthimathi, Advocate. For the Respondents:R. Subramanian, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of the suit property and the payment of court fees depend on the specific circumstances of the case, particularly whether the plaintiffs are parties to the sale deed being attacked and whether the relief of cancellation of the deed is sought.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Valuation of Suit Property - Section 25(d), Section 40 - The court considered the valuation of the suit property under Section 25(d) and whether court fee should be paid under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The court referred to various judgments to determine the applicable provisions and held that if the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed being attacked, a suit for declaration without asking for the relief of cancellation of the deed is maintainable and the suit property can be valued under Section 25(d) of the Act. The court also emphasized that the payment of court fee for declaration itself is sufficient in certain circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The 4th defendant filed an Interlocutory Application contending that the suit should be rejected due to various reasons including undervaluation of the suit property and non-payment of appropriate court fees. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application, leading to the filing of this revision by the 4th defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the valuation of the suit property under Section 25(d) was proper and the Plaint was not liable to be rejected. It also held that the payment of court fee for declaration itself is sufficient in certain circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the valuation of the suit property under Section 25(d) was enough or court fee should be paid under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that if the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed being attacked, a suit for declaration without asking for the relief of cancellation of the deed is maintainable and the suit property can be valued under Section 25(d) of the Act. The court also emphasized that the payment of court fee for declaration itself is sufficient in certain circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and the connected Miscellaneous Petition, finding no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
Key Points: - The 4th defendant filed an Interlocutory Application to reject the plaint due to undervaluation, non-payment of court fees, and other reasons, which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge (!) [21000334540001][21000334540002]. - The sole issue is whether suit valuation under Section 25(d) suffices or court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is required (!) . - If plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed attacked, a suit for declaration (without cancellation relief) is maintainable, valued under Section 25(d), and court fee for declaration is sufficient (!) . - Plaintiffs sought declaration and permanent injunction declaring the sale deed a nullity; they are not parties to the deed and did not pray for cancellation (!) [21000334540001]. - Two prayers (declaration on decree and sale deed) are interconnected; declaring the decree null voids the sale deed, so single court fee for declaration suffices (!) . - Non-filing of sale deed copy with plaint was valid due to impoundment at Sub-Registrar's office; plaint accepted on undertaking (!) . - Plaintiffs' admission of property worth Rs.40 lakhs is irrelevant; as non-parties, valuation under Section 25(d) at Rs.1,11,000 with paid court fee is proper (!) . - Revision dismissed; no illegality in Subordinate Judge's order upholding plaint valuation and refusing rejection (!) .
What is the proper valuation for a suit seeking declaration that a sale deed is a nullity when plaintiffs are not parties to the deed?
Is court fee payable under Section 40 or Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in such a suit?
As against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application filed by the 4th defendant to reject the Plaint, this revision has been filed.
2. The 4th defendant filed the said I.A., contending that the the suit has been filed for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the sale deed dated 112. 2004 executed in favour of the 4th defendant by the Court in REP.No.130/2004 in O.S.No.144 of 2004 is a nullity; along with the plaint the plaintiffs have not filed the copy of the sale deed was not filed and only undertaking has been given subsequently; there are two prayers of declaration, but two separate court fees have not been paid by them; the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the suit property is worth Rs.40 lakhs, but the same has been undervalued and only Rs.1,000/= has been paid as court fee; for these reasons the Plaint is liable to be rejected as the suit is not liable for entertained.
3. The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal, on a consideration of the averments and the submissions of the learned counsels appeared on both sides dismissed the said I.A., holding that the valuation of the suit property by the plaintiffs under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act is proper and the Plaint is not liable to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed by the 4th defendant.
.4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that only Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act apply to the facts of the present case as declaration has been asked to declare the decree null and void which create a right and title in the suit property and as such the suit ought to have been valued on the market value of the suit property, particularly when the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the suit property is worth Rs.40 lakhs.
5. The only issue to be determined in this revision is whether the valuation of the suit property under Section 25(d) is enough or court fee should be paid under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
.6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment of this court reported in 1976 (2) MLJ 9 (Krihna nair V. Rugmoni Ammal) wherein this court held as follows:-
"Where the plaintiffs effectively seek to set aside a judgment of the High Court relating to immovable property, it is obligatory that they should value the subject mater of the suit as on the date when the fresh suit was filed by the parties who were not the same parties who agitated in the earlier proceedings and the suit has to be valued under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act giving the market value of the properties covered by the judgment of the High Court in the earlier suit as on the date of plaint."
.7. In Raja v. Radh Ammal (1988 (1) LW 82), M.N.Chandurkar, Chief Justice held as follows:-
."In a suit for declaration that decree in an earlier suit for partition is null and void and not binding on plaintiffs-plea that they were minors and that the guardian appointment in the earlier suit was irregular and illegal as the interest of the guardian was adverse to that of the minors and that the guardian was negligent and that the minors could therefore be not treated as parties to the suit, then the court fee is payable under Section 40 and not under Section 25(d)."
.8. Learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the judgment of this court in Chellakannu V. Kolanji (2005 (3) MLJ 289) wherein this court held that when plaintiff himself is a party to the sale deed, he must first obtain the cancellation of the sale deeds, irrespective of the fact whether cancellation is sought for or not, the suit is one for cancellation and the plaintiff cannot seek any further relief without setting aside the sale deeds and the court fees must be paid under Section 40 of the Suits Act.
9. However, the learned counsel for the respondents relied o
