ORDER :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decreetal order dated 01.07.2019 passed in I.A.No.349 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decreetal order dated 27.09.2019 passed in I.A.No.677 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 06.02.2020 in I.A.No.1255 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur.)

1. In all these Civil Revision Petitions, the parties are same and the subject matter of the property is also same.

2. In I.A.No.349 of 2019 in O.S.No.120 of 2018, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application for amendment of the plaint on the basis of the written statement, by and which, the defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff.

3. It is well settled principles of law that whenever the title is disputed, the plaintiff shall go for a comprehensive Suit for declaration of title. In the instant case, originally the revision petitioner/plaintiff, filed a Suit for permanent injunction and after filing of the written statement disputing the title of the vendors of the plaintiff themselves has sought for amendment of the plaint into one of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Trial Court has considered the issue and ordered amendment.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in JHARKHAND STATE HOUSING BOARD VS. DIDAR SINGH AND ANOTHER [CIVIL APPEAL NO.8241 OF 2009 DECIDED ON 09.10.2018] has held as under:

“11. It is well settled by catena of judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”

5. However, there is a serious objection raised by the revision petitioner with respect to the valuation of the property as well as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Court to try the Suit. It is necessary for the Trial Court to look into the issue of valuation also while ordering amendment sought for by the plaintiff. But however, the Trial Court has taken the valuation given by the plaintiff as Rs.48,100/- as correct value and allowed the application.

6. Under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Court fee shall be computed on one half of the market value of the immovable property.

7. As per Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Court fee shall be payable on the market value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint.

8. In the instant case, the value was fixed on the basis of the Sale Deed by virtue of the fact that the plaintiff purchased the property in the year 2006 i.e., Rs.48,100/-. But the actual value of the property as on the date of presentation of the plaint in the same year as on 25.06.2018 was not calculated.

9. In fact, the plaintiff filed another interlocutory application for amendment of the value of the Court fee from Rs.161.00 to Rs.721.50 and the total Court fee from Rs.191.00 to Rs.751.50. The Trial Court while passing order, has found that the valuation made by the petitioner on the basis his title Sale Deed of the year 2006 is not correct and dismissed the application in I.A.No.1255 of 2019 on 06.02.2020 for not producing any documents showing the true market value of the property.

10. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court in both the above interlocutory applicat