HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. TAMILVANAN, J.
Kousalya Ramakrishnan
Versus
B.S. Padmavathy & Others
C.R.P. (PD) No.328 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011
Decided on: 28-11-2013
Court Fees - Property Dispute - Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (14 of 1955) - Section 40(1), Section 25(d) - The court held that the petitioner was not required to pay Court Fee under Section 40(1) for the market value of the property as he was not a party to the cancellation deed and subsequent sale deed. Instead, the petitioner was entitled to pay the Court-fee under Section 25(d) of the Court Fee Act. The court also emphasized the principle that the owner of the property is entitled to ignore a sale deed executed by a stranger fraudulently.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration of title and other reliefs for a property that he had purchased through registered sale deeds. The respondents unilaterally cancelled the sale deeds and executed another sale deed in favor of a third party. The petitioner challenged the cancellation and subsequent sale deed, contending that he was not a party to these transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not required to pay Court Fee under Section 40(1) for the market value of the property. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the lower court to dispose of the suit within four months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was liable to pay Court Fee for the market value of the property due to the cancellation and subsequent sale deed executed by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, who was not a party to the cancellation deed and subsequent sale deed, was entitled to pay the Court-fee under Section 25(d) of the Court Fee Act instead of Section 40(1). The court also emphasized the principle that the owner of the property is entitled to ignore a sale deed executed by a stranger fraudulently.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The lower court was directed to dispose of the suit within four months.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice and substituted service, there was no representation for the respondent and the respondent was also called absent. However, the order is passed on merits.
2. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed in the Check Slip No.216/XXVII/N in Diary No.16 passed in O.S.No.212 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.
3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.212 of 2008 that was filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein seeking declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property was sold by way of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the averments of the plaint and submitted that the entire property was originally owned by the respondents 1 to 7. They sold 50% of the said property in favour of the plaintiff herein through their power of attorney one Daleelullah Khan and another 50% of the property in favour of one Suresh Kumar Bothra and his brothers. The petitioner/plaintiff, subsequently purchased the said 50% of the other property from Suresh Kumar Bothra and his brothers, thereby, the petitioner/plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire suit property. However, the respondents 1 to 7 executed a sale deed in favour of the 9th respondent herein through their another power of attorney the 8th respondent herein against law by cancelling the sale deeds that were executed in favour of the petitioner and the said Suresh Kumar Bothra and his brothers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents 1 to 7 have no such right to cancel the sale deeds which were executed by them through their power of attorney in favour of the petitioner in respect of 50% of the property and the vendor of the petitioner in respect of the other 50% of the property. Challenging the cancellation deeds and the subsequent sale deed executed by the respondents 1 to 7 in favour of the ninth respondent, the suit has been filed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sale deed executed in favour of the ninth respondent by the respondents 1 to 7 through their power of attorney, the eighth respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to the cancellation deed and the subsequent sale deeds that were executed by the respondents 1 to 7 through the eighth respondent against law. On the aforesaid circumstances, for challenging the cancellation deeds and fraudulent sale deeds executed by the respondents 1 to 7, in favour of the ninth respondent, Court Fee need not be paid on the market value of the said properties.
5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in SIDDHA CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. VS. M. SHANMUGAM, 2006 (4) MLJ 924, wherein this Court (S.Rajeswaran, J) has held that when the plaintiffs are not parties in the impugned sale deed relating to the suit property, they need not pay Court-fees under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (14 of 1955) and the payment of Court-fees under Section 25(d) is proper.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to various other decisions referred to by this Court in the earlier orders in GNANAMBAL AMMAL V. KANNAPPA PILLAI, 1959 1 MLJ 353 wherein, this Court has held as follows:
"Where a plaintiff's case is that a document is sham and nominal, it need not be set aside, and the suit for relief on that footing is not one for cancellation, so as to attract the application of Section 40 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. But even in such a case, if the plaintiff sues for cancellation he would have to pay Court-fee on that relief, whether it is necessary to have the deed c
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.