Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 2309
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. KARUPPIAH, J.
Krishnaswamy Education Trust Rep. by its Managing Trustee Dr. K. Rajendran, Cuddalore & Another
Versus
Jabely Edward & Others
C.R.P. No. 2772 of 2009
Decided On : 06-08-2014
For the Petitioners:S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R6, T.S. Baskaran, Advocate, R7 & R8, No Appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation and application of court fees under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act in suits seeking declaration of the validity of a compromise final decree.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Jurisdiction - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act - Section 12(2), Section 40 - The court discussed the applicability of court fees under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act in a suit seeking declaration of the validity of a compromise final decree. The court referred to various decisions to determine the correct interpretation of the Act and held that the respondents should have valued and paid the court fee under Section 40 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit seeking declaration that a compromise final decree passed in a previous suit was not valid and unenforceable. The revision petitioners questioned the correctness of the court fees paid by the respondents under Section 25(d) of the Act and sought a preliminary decision on the issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents should have valued and paid the court fee under Section 40 of the Act, based on the nature of the relief sought in the suit and the parties involved.
Issues: The main issue was the correct valuation and payment of court fees under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents should have valued and paid the court fee under Section 40 of the Act, based on the nature of the relief sought in the suit and the parties involved.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's order and directed the respondents to represent the plaint and pay the court fee under Section 40 of the Act within one month, failing which the plaint would be rejected.
1. The revision petitioners, who are defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit have preferred this revision petition against the order passed in I.A.No.1551 of 2002 in O.S.No.269 of 2002 dated 22.06.2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
2. For the sake of convenience, defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit are referred as revision petitioners, plaintiffs 1 to 6 in the original suit are referred as respondents 1 to 6, the first defendant in the original suit is referred as 7th respondent and the fourth defendant in the original suit is referred as 8th respondent hereinafter.
3. Respondents 1 to 6 filed a suit in O.S.No.269 of 2002 and seeking the relief of declaration that the compromise final decree passed in I.A.No.864 of 1998 in O.S.No.347 of 1977 on 30.04.1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore is not valid and unenforceable and also prayed for to set aside the same.
4. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.1551 of 2002 under Section 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act and prayed for to decide the correctness of the Court fees as preliminary issue before recording evidence. According to the revision petitioners, the respondents have to value the suit and to pay the Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Further, the case of the revision Petitioners is that if the suit is valued under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act, the trial Court in which the suit was filed has no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, prayed for to decide the issue in respect of Court fees as preliminary issue.
5. On the side of the contesting respondents/plaintiff filed a detailed counter in which it is stated that the suit is filed only seeking the relief of declaration that the final decree passed in I.A.No.864 of 1998 in O.S.No.347 of 1977 dated 30.04.1999 is void, not binding and unenforceable and on that ground prayed for to set aside the final decree and therefore the court fee paid under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act, is correct and no need to pay the court fee under Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act, since the respondents did not seek the relief of cancellation of decree. Further, it is stated that the above said issue may be decided in the trial itself along with other issues and the preliminary issue leads to multiplicity of the proceedings and also it leads to unnecessary delay. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the above said application.
6. Since the trial Court already rejected to grant the above said relief sought for in the above said application, the revision petitioners preferred C.R.P.(PD) No.2861 of 2003 before this Court. This Court has held that the question must be heard and to be decided by the Court below before recording the evidence and therefore, the order of the trial Court passed on 04.03.2003 was set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.
7. The trial Court again passed an order on 22.06.2009 after hearing both sides and finally dismissed the above said application filed by the revision Petitioners.. Aggrieved over the above said dismissal order passed in I.A.No.1551 of 2001 by the trial Court, again the revision petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.
9. Briefly the case of the respondents 1 to 6 stated in the plaint is that one Dhanalakshmi purchased the suit properties from legal heirs of Parrie De Gonsaga on 7.2.1959. Later, father of respondents 1 to 6 and 8 namely Govindaraju and their mother Visalakshmi purchased the same property from John De Gonsaga under a registered sale deed dated 6.6.1962. The above said Govindaraju filed a suit for declaration and for recovery
