Liability to pay court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 when the plaintiffs are not parties to the impugned sale deed.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 25 March, 2014, in I.A.No.72 of 2013 in O.S.No.123 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 r/w Order XIV Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.123 of 2012 before the Subordinate Court, Palani, praying for a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 07 November, 2003, is void and legally invalid, besides a decree of injunction.

3. The petitioners entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.72 of 2013 to decide the question relating to Court fee and jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The Trial Court dismissed the said application. The order dated 25 March, 2014, is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the subject property was purchased for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. The respondent was, therefore, liable to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, taking into account the market value. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the respondent is not a party to the sale deed and as such, she is not liable to pay Court fee on the market value.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

6. The respondent, in her suit in O.S.No.123 of 2012, contended that the third defendant has no right, title or interest to convey the property in question to the petitioners herein. Since the respondent was not a party to the document, she paid Court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

7. The petitioners, in their affidavit filed in support of the application, contended that the document in question was executed in 2003 for a sum of Rs.3,20,000/-. The present guideline value of the property would come to Rs.29,02,500/-. In case the said valuation is taken, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction.

8. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter. According to the respondent, she was not a party to the document in question and as such, there is no liability to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

9. The learned Trial Judge observed that the respondent is not a co-nominee party to the sale deed and as such, Court fee paid by her is correct.

10. The core question is as to whether the respondent is liable to pay Court fee on the market rate of the property, as provided under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

11. The very same issue came up for consideration before this Court on multiple occasions.

12. In M.Mani v. P.Latha & others [2012(5) LW 136], this Court observed that even though the sale deed was executed by the vendor as the power agent of the plaintiff, it cannot be stated that the plaintiff was a party to the document. This Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court, directing the petitioner to pay Court fee under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, and held that the plaintiff has to value the relief of declaration under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

13. This Court, in Siddha Construction (P) Ltd. v. M.Shanmugam [2006(4) MLJ 924] held that when the plaintiffs are not parties to the impugned sale deed, they need not pay Court fee under Section 40(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and payment of Court-fee under Section 25(d) is proper.

14. In M.Nelson Babu v. K.Kamalesh Babu & another [2010(1) LW 289], this Court found that the plaintiffs were not parties to the document. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the proper Co