The substantive relief asked for in the plaint should be considered to determine the Court fee, and under-valuation of reliefs should be prevented to ensure the State does not lose revenue.

1. The petitioner has filed a suit praying for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The Court below rejected the plaint on the ground that the Court fee should have been valued under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and not under Section 25(d) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision before this Court.

2. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the relief sought for by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit, is only with reference to the removal of the cloud over the petitioner's right of usage, enjoyment, etc., of the suit property and the common pathway, as the same is obstructed by the defendant and as such, the Court fee payable for the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff comes under Section 25(d) and not under Section 25(b) of the Act, as held by the Court below. He would also cite a decision of this Court reported in Rangoon Chidambara Reddiar Chatram Trust, Etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 (1) L.W. 474 to substantiate his plea.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the impugned order and the citation referred to above.

4. Section 25(b) of the Act would relate to the prayer for declaration and for consequential injunction with reference to any immovable property, and the Court fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on Rs.300 whichever is higher.

5. Section 25(d) of the Act relates to other cases, and whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, the fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on Rs.400, whichever is higher.

6. The judgement of this Court reported in Rangoon Chidambara Reddiar Chatram Trust, Etc., v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 (1) L.W. 474 would not apply to the present facts of the case, because, in that case, Section 25(d) of the Act alone would apply, as the prayer in the suit was for relief of declaration that the assessment proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income Tax Act, was illegal, void, etc., and for consequential injunction. But, in this case, on going through the entire plaint, it is obvious that the relief of declaration is sought for with reference to the immovable property.

7. It is specifically stated in the plaint that as per the sale deed dated 19.11.1997, the petitioner is entitled to the southern half share and the respondent would be entitled to the northern half share. There was nothing mentioned about the common pathway. The respondent attempted to interfere with the petitioner's right of usage, enjoyment, etc., of the suit property and the common pathway, by putting up construction. The petitioner has approached the civil Court to obtain declaration about the said right and the consequential injunction. The wordings contained in the plaint would certainly make it clear that the Court fee would be payable only under Section 25(b) of the Act and not under Section 25(d) of the Act.

8. Though there is some reference about the word "cloud" in Section 25 of the Act, that would not help the plaintiff to claim the relief sought for in the suit and the Court fee payable under Section 25 (d) of the Act.

9. It is settled law that the Court, in deciding the question of Court fee, should look into the allegations in the plaint to see as to what is the substantive relief that is asked for. Mere astuteness in drafting the plaint will not be allowed to stand in the way of the Court looking at the substance of the relief asked for. The Courts have to be, not only vigilant and read between the lines with a view to arrest the tendency of the litigant to under-value the reliefs, and to pay the minimum Court fee and to obtain the substantial relief, but also ensure that the State does not lose revenue. This principle has been emphasised by the Supreme Court reported in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Pra