The main legal point established in the judgment is that the correct valuation of suits for possession of immovable property under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, depends on whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property or a lessee seeking possession from an encroacher.

1. Thedefendants filed petition invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint.The said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court.Hence, the defendants are before this court in the present civil revision petition.

2. The respondent/plaintiff M/s.Madras Race Club filed a suit praying inter alia for a direction to the defendants to re-deliver the vacant possession of the encroached portion of the property measuring 5 grounds 357 sqft comprised in T.S.No.1 (part) Block No.13 morefully described in the suit B schedule.

3. The plaintiff has contended in the suit that the plaintiff got A schedule property comprising 83.12 acres on lease alongwith other properties under the deed of lease dated 3. 1946 from the Government.It is alleged that the plaintiff, as a lessee, has been in occupation of the A schedule property ever since 1845. The defendants encroached upona portion of the A schedule property admeasuring 5 grounds and 357 sqft and put up some illegal construction over there.With the above contentions, the plaintiff has sought for the aforesaid relief of delivery of vacant possession of the encroached portion of the property.

4. The revision petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have contended in the petition filed by them under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the respondent/plaintiffhas valued the prayer for delivery of possession under section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 whereas section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955would squarely apply to a suit for possession not otherwise provided for.Alleging that the market value of the suit schedule property is worth several crores, the respondent/plaintiff seeks for rejection of the plaint as the suit was undervalued and there is evasion of payment of stamp duty.

5. The respondent/plaintiff in its counter has contended that only to protract and prolong the suit proceedings, the revision petitioners have filed the petition for the second time under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint at a stage when the suit is pending part heard.It is contended that the respondent/plaintiff has rightly valued the suit under section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955as the respondent is only a lessee paying rent to the Government.Therefore, the question of valuation of the suit under section 30 Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955does not arise for consideration.At any rate, the petition filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not at all maintainable.

6. The Trial Court, having adverted to the provision under section 30 and 50 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955in the background of the fact that the respondent, being the lessee under the Government, has sought for vacant possession of the encroached portion of the property, held that the respondent has rightly valued the suit under section 50 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 .

.7. The revision petitioners have filed the petition under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint. A defendant in the suit can pray for rejection of the plaint only ina case where the plaint does not disclose cause of action or where the plaintiff failed to do correct valuation of the suit within the time frame fixed by the court when it was found that the relief claimed was undervalued or where the plaintiff failed to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time frame fixed by the court when it was found that the plaint was insufficiently stamped or where the suit is found to be barred by law or where the plaint was not filed in duplicate or where the plaintiff failed to present as many copies of plaint as there are defendants as directed by the court as per Order VII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. In the instant case, there was