IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the valuation of a suit must adhere strictly to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, and that any attempt to manipulate the valuation to gain jurisdiction in a higher court is impermissible.

ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair order and decreetal order, dated 16.02.2016 in I.A. No. 239 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur.

1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 16.02.2016 in I.A. No. 239 of 2012 in O.S. No. 1 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Karur.

2. The revision petitioner herein - The Idol, Arulmighu Kalayana Venkataramanaswamy is the plaintiff before the Court below. It appears that the plaintiff - The Idol Arulmighu Kalayana Venkataramanaswamy has filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit properties and also for the relief of declaration, to declare the sale deed executed in favour of the defendants 9 to 13 as illegal, void and non-est. The plaintiff has valued the suit for Rs. 1,00,04,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Four Thousand only) under Section 25 (a), 25(d), 27(c), and 44(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and presented the plaint before the District Court, Karur. The same was numbered as O.S. No. 1 of 2012. It appears that on numbering of the suit, the defendants filed an application objecting inflated valuation and for return of plaint, to be presented before the proper Court, viz. District Munsif Court.

3. According to the petitioner herein, they valued the relief of declaration and possession on the basis of the market value under Section 30 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 ( Herein after called “the Act”) and valued the suit for Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 25(a) of the Act.

4. However, the respondent herein contended that as per Section 7 of the Act, the market value, which is referred to in Section 30 or in Section 25(a) of the Act, shall be 30 times of the Kist of the Ryotwari land. Therefore, the value of the relief for declaration and possession would only be Rs. 1.69 x 30 = Rs. 50.70. Therefore, contended that the suit should have been filed before the District Munsif Court. The learned counsel for the respondent herein would further submit that, if the suit is dismissed, then there will be no issue to them. However, in the event of suit is decreed, then, it would put them in great difficulty as they are liable to pay huge Court fee of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only). Therefore he would submit that as per the correct valuation of the relief, the proper Court is the District Munsif Court. Hence, he prayed to return the plaint, District Munsif Court, Karur.

5. The revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed a counter denying all the allegations of the respondent herein, and would submit that they cannot have any grievance in the valuation of suit on market value payment of Court fee as long as the same is on higher side. The revision petitioner also would contend that the petition is speculative and bereft of material.

6. The learned trial Judge, after considering either side, has concluded that the market value of the suit property should only have to be assessed based upon the Kist value as per Section 7 of the Act, and in that event, the pecuniary jurisdiction will come under the District Munsif Court, Karur. Hence, directed to represent the plaint before the appropriate Court with liberty to amend the plaint with regard to the valuation of the suit property, without filing separate amendment petition.

7. Aggrieved with the order of the Court below, the petitioner herein has come up with the instant revision petition.

8. In order to appreciate this case, more effectively and for ready reference, this Court deem it appropriate to extract the “Details of Valuation” mentioned in the plaint. The same are:

“Details of Valuation