Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2320
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Chidambara Suriyanarayanan @ Karuppan & Another
Versus
Ankaiyarkanni & Others
C.R.P PD (MD) No.556 of 2005 & C.M.P. No.4359 of 2005
Decided on: 14-07-2009
For the Petitioners:S.A. Ajmal Khan, Advocate. For the Respondent:L. Gunasekaran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ascertaining the market value of immovable property for the purpose of computing court fees, emphasizing the need for dependable evidence to determine the actual market value.
Headnote:
Valuation - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Section 27(c), Section 30 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, particularly focusing on the valuation of suit properties and the determination of market value. The court emphasized the importance of ascertaining the market value of the property and highlighted the legal principles regarding the computation of market value for the purpose of court fees in suits relating to immovable property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent and temporary injunctions, as well as recovery of possession of certain properties. The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the suit, alleging undervaluation of the properties. The court was tasked with determining the proper valuation of the suit properties and the sufficiency of court fees paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in summoning the Sub Registrar to produce the guideline value for determining the market value of the suit properties. It held that the defendants could have proved the actual market value through sale deeds or other dependable evidence, and the impugned order was not in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was justified in calling for the guideline value to determine the market value of the suit properties, and whether the suit properties were properly valued and sufficient court fees were paid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the valuation of suit properties and the determination of market value primarily concern the court and the plaintiff. It highlighted the legal principles regarding the computation of market value for the purpose of court fees in suits relating to immovable property, emphasizing the need for dependable evidence to ascertain the actual market value.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the revision was allowed. The application filed by the defendants was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with the law, disposing of the matter expeditiously.
This Revision is directed against the order in I.A. No. 20 of 2005 in I.A. No. 861 of 2004 in O.S. No. 304 of 2004 dated 2. 2005 allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants and thereby directing production of guideline value from the Sub Registrar’s Office, Chinnamanur. Plaintiffs are the revision petitioners.
2. There are two items of suit properties, one is vacant house site S. No. 184 (item No. 1) and another is house bearing new Door No. 75, South Car street, Seepalakottai road,
S. No. 215 (item No. 2). Suit properties are situated in one compound shown as ‘ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR’ in the rough sketch filed along with the plaint.
3. Revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed O.S. No. 304 of 2004 for the following reliefs:
(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from constructing any building in the suit properties in item No. 1.
(b) Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants from encumbering the suit properties.
(c) Recovery of possession of house in item No. 2.
4. Opposing the suit, Defendants have filed I.A. No. 861 of 2004 under Order 7, Rule 11
(b) C.P.C. seeking for rejection of suit. In the supporting-affidavit, defendants have averred that the suit properties were not valid properly and was under valued. Alleging that the suit properties were not valid properly and that if the properties are properly valued, Munsif Court would not have jurisdiction to try the suit, respondents/defendants have filed application I.A. No. 861 of 2004 to reject the plaint.
5. Defendants have also filed three documents obtained from VAO showing that the properties were worth about Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 16,00,000/-, to substantiate their averment that the properties were under valued.
6. Along with I.A. No. 861 of 2004, Respondents have also filed I.A. No. 20 of 2005 Under Section 75 C.P.C invoking power of the Court to issue summons to Sub Registrar, Chinnamanur to produce the guideline value for the suit properties and to produce the Book containing guideline value for the properties in Chinnamanur.
7. Observing that the market value of the property could be ascertained from the guideline value maintained by the Sub Registrar, learned District Munsif allowed the application and directed production of guideline value register from Sub Registrar Office, Chinnamanur which is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the trial Court failed to see that the Defendants are not entitled to question the valuation of the plaint at the stage and the Court has to take into account the plaint averments and the valuation given by the Plaintiffs. Placing reliance upon G. Krishnamurthy and two Others v. Sarangapani and Another, (1996) 1 MLJ 533 : 1996 (1) CTC 280 learned counsel for the revision petitioners would further contend that the suit being one for recovery of possession is based on the market value and under Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, plaintiffs have to pay Court fees on the market value and while so, calling for guideline value is illegal.
9. Inspite of service of notice, respondents/defendants have not entered in appearance. Mr. L. Gunasekaran, learned counsel was appointed through Legal Services Authority.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the objection to the Court is not taken at the earlier stage, it may not be possible for the defendants to raise objection. It was further argued that under Section 7(2)(g) read with Section 30 of Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, plaintiffs have to pay the Court fees as pay the market value. It was further argued that for determining the market value, there is nothing wrong for the Court to call for the guideline value register and the impugned order is well in accordance with the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the same cannot be interfered with.
11. Placin
