The court clarified the limitations of the bar under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act and the application of Order 7 Rule 11 in the context of rejection of the plaint.

1. This application has been filed by the defendants 2 to 8, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 42, 45 to 55, 57, 61, 62, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81 to 88 and 92 in the suit seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose the cause of action, that the plaint has been undervalued and the provisions of Section 80 (3) had not been complied with.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is contended that the suit has been filed for various reliefs and the main relief that is sought for in the suit is for recovery of possession in as much as prayer (a) in the suit reads as follows:

“(a): for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 99 to remove the illegal construction put by them at Old No.181, New No.116, Urur Village (Oorur Village), Adayar, Chennai 20 measuring to an extent of 1.32 acres, comprised in old Survey No.78 and new Town Survey 65/1 Block No.25 morefully described in the schedule property and to handover vacant possession to the plaintiffs”

3. It is contended that the plaintiffs have adopted a notional valuation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the suit property, whereas as per the guideline value, the value of the suit property is about Rs.11,50,00,000/-. It is contended that as per Section 30 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act 1955, the market value of the property should be adopted as the value of the suit property for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction and therefore the plaintiffs have no right to adopt a notional valuation of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Therefore, according to the applicants the suit has been undervalued and hence the plaint has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (b) and (c). It is also further contended that the suit against the official defendants, viz. defendants 103 to 105 is bad for want of notice under Section 80 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the suit is barred under the said provision. It is also claimed that the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5 would resist the application contending that they valued the property only after having obtained a valuation from the approved valuer and since the property has been encroached upon, the market value of the property was assessed to about Rs.1,13,500/- per cent by the valuer. It is based on such valuation, the plaintiffs have adopted the value of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in the plaint. It is also the contention of respondents 1 to 5 that clauses b and c of Rule 11 of Order 7 do not apply to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction in its Original Side and therefore the question of valuation and nonpayment of deficit Court Fee cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint after the same having been numbered.

5. I have heard Mr. M.V. Seshachari, learned counsel appearing for M/s. Hari Radhakrishnan for the applicants, Mr. Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for M/s. S. Annamalai, for the respondents 1 to 5 and Mr. T. Jayaramaraj, Government Advocate (C.S.) appearing for the respondents 57 to 59.

6. Though, several grounds have been urged for rejection of the plaint Mr. M.V. Seshachari, learned counsel would confine his submission only to two grounds, viz.,

1. The valuation of the suit property and

2. The bar under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act.

Insofar as the bar under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act is concerned, the said Section itself allows a suit for declaration of title being filed and makes entries in the Patta Pass Book subject to the decision of the Civil Courts. Under Section 14 what is prohibited is only a suit challenging the entries as such. Of course Mr. M.V. Seshachari, would contend that the prayers, viz. for mandatory injunction directing the defendants 103 and 104 to cancel the patta illegally issued in favour of defendants 1 to 5, 9, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 32, 33, 44, 48 to 53, 57, 61, 62, 71 to 74, 80, 81 to 83, 88, 89, 92, 95 to 97 and such a prayer is barred under S