The issue of undervaluation of a suit and the jurisdiction of the Court should be determined based on the valuation of the suit, and the Trial Court should dispose of the suit accordingly.

1. The instant revision has been filed challenging the order dated 13.03.2013 passed by the learned III Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant revision:

2. The petitioner is the first defendant in the suit O.S.No.788 of 2004. The suit O.S.No.788 of 2004 was filed by P.Kannaiyan and Chandran claiming to be the president and member of the Gangawar Mahajana Trust respectively against the petitioner and other defendants seeking for a declaration and for an injunction. According to the plaintiffs in the suit, the petitioner does not have any right of interest in the two temples namely Arulmigu Mahaliamman Temple and Arulmigu Pattalamman Temple situated at Street No.3, Weddermenpet Street, Rangai Gowder Street, Coimbatore. The petitioner filed I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004 raising a preliminary issue that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.788 of 2004 is undervalued.

3. According to the petitioner, the relief of declaration and injunction should be couched as one relief. Further according to the petitioner, the Court Fees Act provides a separate provision under Section 25(b) to value the relief of declaration and consequential relief of injunction as one relief. According to the petitioner, the subject matter of the suit should be valued at half of the market value of the property. According to the petitioner, if such a valuation is adopted, the plaintiffs' temple and its properties which are located in the area of about 50 cents in the heart of the city, where one cent of land is valued at not less than Rs.5,00,000/-, the valuation of the subject matter would come to Rs.2.50 crores. According to the petitioner, under Section 25(b) of the Court Fees Act, the subject matter should be valued at half of the market value which should be Rs.1.25 crores. It is also the case of the petitioner that the plaintiffs also cannot claim exemption in the payment of Court fee as the temple is a private temple and not a public temple.

4. Based on the aforesaid averments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004 raising undervaluation of the suit as a preliminary issue. A counter was also filed by the plaintiffs in the suit in I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. The Trial Court by its order dated 13.03.2013 dismissed I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004 filed by the petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004, the instant revision has been filed.

6. Heard Mr.V.Bhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the first and seventh respondents. Despite service of notice on the remaining respondents, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

Discussion:

7. The Trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004 filed by the petitioner raising undervaluation of the suit as a preliminary issue on the ground that temple properties cannot be valued. But it is the case of the petitioner that the suit schedule property belongs to a private temple and therefore no exemption can be granted for payment of Court fees to the plaintiffs in the suit O.S.No.788 of 2004. He has also pleaded in his written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.788 of 2004 has been undervalued and the plaintiffs cannot claim any exemption in the payment of Court fee, as it is not a Public temple.

8. Since the Trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.596 of 2006 in O.S.No.788 of 2004 as early as on 13.03.2013 and further the petitioners having already filed their written statement in the suit raising amongst other defences, the defence relating to undervaluation of the suit, this Court is of the considered view that the issue of undervaluation of the suit can no longer be a preliminary issue in view of the long passage of time as the suit is of the year 2004 and Interlocutory Application was filed in t