This Revision Petition involves the construction of sections 12 and a8 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation

Act, 1955 (Madras Act XIV of 1P55). The suit was originally instituted in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thanjavur, in

1960 and registered there as O.S. No. 14 of 1961. The suit was laid for recovery of possession of the properties set

out in Schedules A to D-2 of the plaint and for rendition of accounts by the defendant and future profits, the plaintiff

instituting the suit as Madathipathi of Kovilur Mutt. The plaintiff had valued the suit for purpose of Court-fee and

jurisdiction at Rs. 2,34,652 and paid Court-fee Rs. 200 under section 28 of the Act on the relief of possession, the

maximum Court-fee payable under that section, and a Court-fee of Rs. 75 in respect of relief for accounting under

section 35 (1) of the Act. The suit was later transferred to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kumbakonam, where it

became O.S. No. 14 of 1964. Then for the first time the office raised the question of Court-fee payable on the plaint,

but later dropped that matter, as the plaint had already been registered. The defendant who did not raise any objection

as regards the Court-fee in his written statement filed when the suit was pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge of

Thanjavur, in August, 1964 by way of additional written statement, raised the question that the suit has not been

properly valued and the fee paid is not sufficient. It is on this objection by the defendant that the Court considered the

question and passed an order on the 19th of April, 1965 holding that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was not correct

and that he had to re-value the plaint in regard to recovery of possession under section 30 of the Act and pay Court-fee

thereon under section 30 of the Act.

It is necessary to set out briefly the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff claims to be the present Madathipathi or

Adhinakarathar of Kovilur Mutt in Ramnad District. It is stated that a predecessor of the present plaintiff, the 5th

Madathipathi of the Kovilur Mutt, before his death, went to Tirukkalar in or about 1907 for renovating Sri

Parijathavaneswarar temple there and for the purposes of his stay, he built a madam there and called it as Ko, a

Madalayam. It is stated that as the head of the Kovilur Mutt, with the funds of the Mutt, for the upkeep of the Mutt and

for Kattalai started by him in the temple at Tirukkalar, he acquired properties and a Samadhi has been erected for him

at Tirukkalar. The present plaintiff states that succeeding head of the Kovilur Mutt added further properties and he also

purchased further properties and utilised the income for the Madalayam at Tirukkalar, for the maintenance of the

Samadhi Pooja and worship there. The plaint proceeds to aver that an establishment was maintained at Tirukkalar to

look after the lands purchased, to have worship at the Samadhi conducted and to feed devotees and disciples that might

resort there, and that the practice of the Adhinakarathars (head) of Kovilur Mutt was to send one or other disciple to

Tirukkalar as agent to supervise and look after the Madalayam, the buildings and lands, all detailed in the schedule to

the plaint. It is stated that the defendant as a disciple has been similarly sent to Tirukkalar to supervise and attend to the

affairs by the Adhinakarathar Mahadeva Gnana Desiga Swamigal, a predecessor of the present plaintiff. The position of

the defendant in relation to the suit properties is thus set out in paragraph, 6 of the plaint:

“The defendant came over to Tirukkalar and supervised and attended to the said affairs as a disciple and agent of

Mahadeva Swamigal. He was sometimes called karwar............After the demise of the said Mahadeva Swamigal,

plaintiff in turn orally appointed and required defendant to supervise and manage the properties on his behalf and as his

agent and he was doing so and sending accounts of such management as before to plaintiff.”

In p