The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of court fees should be based on the allegations in the Plaint and not on the written statements or the final decision of the suit.

1. The Petitioners/Plaintiffs have filed the Civil Revision Petition as against the Order dated 7. 2007 made in the unnumbered Suit/Plaint in O.S.SR. NO.2719 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chengleput.

2. The learned Principle District Judge, Chengleput has passed Order on 7. 2007 in the unnumbered Plaint in O.S.SR. No.2719 of 2007 which runs as follows:

“The suit is filed on the basis of the Plaint document No.5 which is a sale deed dated 23.09.2004 purchased in the name of the 2nd plaintiff-Visalashi. On that basis the Suit ought to have been filed for possession of the property described in the schedule in document No.5, instead the plaintiffs have come forward with the Suit for partition which is not correct. As such the plaintiffs are directed to pay the requisite Court fee on the market value of the schedule mentioned property described in document No.5, namely Rs.15 Lakhs as detailed in Para-24 of the Plaint as per the provision of Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act instead of paying Court fee u/S.37 (2) of Court Fees Act. Time for payment of Court fee four weeks

Hence returned.

Sd/-

P.D.J

7. 2007

3. It inspires from the typeset of papers that the original Plaint in the above said unnumbered Suit has been returned by the learned Principal District Judge on 12/4/2007 with the following endorsement:

Returned:

(i) How Partition Suit is maintainable to be stated?

(ii) Blanks in the Plaint as well as duplicate Plaint to be filled up and attested.

Time 1 month

Sd/-

Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu.

4. For the said return, the learned counsel for the Revision petitioners/plaintiffs has made the following endorsement on 11/6/2007 which runs as follows:

“Since the Suit is arising out of a Joint Development agreement the frame of the Suit is perfectly in Order. Similar Suit have been filed and Orders obtained in High Court, Madras. If the Registry has any doubt it may be posted before Court for maintainability. Blanks in the Plaint duly filled up Complied with and represented.” Sd/-19.06.2007 Counsel for plaintiffs

5. Again on 11/6/2007, the office of the learned Principal District Judge Chengleput has made the office note which is extracted as follows:

“The Counsel for plaintiff filed a Suit before this Court on 12/4/2007 and the same was returned on 12/4/2007 for the reason “How the Suit is maintainable”.

The Suit is re-presented before this Court today (11.06.2007) stating “the same is arising out of a Joint Development Agreement and the framing of the Suit is perfectly in order. If any doubt place it in open Court.”

In this connection it is submitted the plaintiff and the first defendant did not enter into any Joint Development Agreement or without a written contract the premises was developed. Moreover, the plaintiff sought for partition in the A and B schedule properties because of misunderstanding. For Orders:”

6. Based on the said office note, the matter has been directed to be called in open Court by the learned Principal District Judge Chengleput. On 15/6/2007 and later the matter has been adjourned to 22/6/2007. On 22.06.2007 the learned Principal District judge, Chengleput has heard the Revision petitioners/plaintiffs counsel and posted the impugned order in question.

7. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned Principal District judge, Chengleput, ought to have taken into account that a Court cannot call upon the plaintiffs to pay the Court-fee under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955. In as much as in a Suit for Partition, the Court-fee payable is only under Section 37 (1) or 37 (2) of the Act and therefore, the demand for payment of additional Court fee as per Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 is not sustainable and untenable both on facts and in law and moreover, the learned Principal District Judge ought to have accepted the averments made in the Plaint and should have