SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 4073

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
A. Murugesan
Versus
Satheeshkumar & Others
C.R.P.(PD).No.1956 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided On : 07-11-2008

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:D. Shivakumaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1 & R2, V. Bharathidasan, Advocate.

The entire substance of the relief mentioned in the plaint should be taken into account to determine the Court fee to be paid.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act - Valuation of Plaint - Section 12(2), Order VII Rule 11(b), Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code - [Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Section 12(2), Order VII Rule 11(b), Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code]

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory relief in respect of the suit property and a consequent relief of permanent injunction. The defendants filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and Order VII Rule 11(b) and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking direction to value the plaint as per Section 40(1) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The trial Court directed the plaintiff to value the plaint as per Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The plaintiff contended that he should not be required to pay Court fee under Section 40 as he was not a party to the sale deed in question.

Issues: The main issue was whether the plaintiff should value the plaint as per Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, considering the nature of the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the relief sought for by the plaintiff did not come within the ambit of Section 40 of the Act as he was not a party to the sale deed in question. The Court emphasized that the entire substance of the relief mentioned in the plaint should be taken into account to determine the Court fee to be paid.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the order passed by the trial Court was set aside. The application filed by the defendants was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Judgment :-

The civil revision petitioner/first respondent/ plaintiff has preferred the civil revision petition aggrieved against the order dated 012. 2007 in I.A.No.783 of 2007 in O.S.No.228 of 2004 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy in allowing the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 3 and 4/petitioners under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and Order VII Rule 11(b) and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code by directing the revision petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff to value the Plaint as per Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.783 of 2007, has inter alia observed that when the revision petitioner/plaintiff prays for a declaratory relief in respect of the suit property and a consequent relief of permanent injunction, then the plaintiff has to value the plaint as per Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and accordingly, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has to take steps for amending the plaint and resultantly, allowed the application.

3. The respondents 1 and 2/defendants 3 and 4 as petitioners in I.A.No.783 of 2007 have inter alia averred that admittedly on 110. 1999 the first defendant (in the suit) as the general power of attorney agent of the revision petitioner/plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of the second defendant as per the general power of attorney deed dated 13. 1999 in favour of the first defendant by the revision petitioner/plaintiff as per the sale agreement entered into between the revision petitioner/plaintiff and their mother deceased second defendant and the revision petitioner/plaintiff has not strangely disputed the sale agreement dated 13. 1999 and there is no prayer to set aside the sale agreement and as such, the first defendant as a general power of attorney agent of the revision petitioner /plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of the deceased second defendant as per the agreement entered into by the revision petitioner/plaintiff in favour of their mother deceased second defendant and therefore, the sale deed dated 110. 1999 in favour of their mother is binding on the revision petitioner/plaintiff and that the revision petitioner/plaintiff should have filed the suit for the relief of declaration to set aside the sale in favour of their mother and paid the Court fees as per Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and that the revision petitioner/plaintiff has valued the suit under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 as if he is in possession and the same is defective and as per Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, the issue pertaining to determination of Court fee has to be raised before evidence is recorded on the merits of the claim and hence, pray for allowing the application giving direction to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to amend the plaint and value the same under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and pay the necessary Court fees.

4. The revision petitioner/first respondent/plaintiff has filed a counter among other things mentioning that the revision petitioner/plaintiffs contention in the suit is that the alleged sale agreement in favour of the second defendant and the alleged power of attorney dated 15.03.1999 are sham and nominal and resultantly, the alleged sale deed 110. 1999 is also a sham and nominal one and all the above documents have not been acted upon and has not come into effect and therefore, the question of setting aside those documents do not arise and further that an issue in regard to the payment of Court fees can be framed and that the application has been projected with a view to delay the proceedings and therefore, prays for dismissal of the same.

5. The learned counsel for the revision











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top