IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
Appandai Raj S/o. Samuthiravijayan S/o. Samuthiravijayan – Appellant
Versus
N. Aishwarya D/o. C. Nemichandran – Respondents
C.R.P.No.1218 of 2024 and C.M.P. No.6371 of 2024
Decided on : 28-03-2024
CIVIL REVISION PETITION - COURT FEES AND SUITS VALUATION ACT - The court analyzed the valuation of a suit for permanent injunction and declaration of a settlement deed as null and void under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It upheld the trial court's direction to value the declaration under Section 40 due to the petitioner being a party to the deed, while it set aside the direction to value the injunction prayer under Section 27(a), affirming that it was correctly valued under Section 27(c) in the absence of a title dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent, seeking to restrain alienation of property and declaring a settlement deed as null and void. The trial court dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint, directing the petitioner to value the suit under specific sections of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner correctly valued the injunction prayer under Section 27(c) and that the trial court's direction to value it under Section 27(a) was not sustainable. However, it confirmed the trial court's direction to value the declaration of the settlement deed under Section 40.
Issues: Whether the trial court's direction to value the injunction prayer under Section 27(a) was correct, and whether the declaration of the settlement deed should be valued under Section 40.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of a title dispute, the injunction prayer should be valued under Section 27(c). For the declaration of a document as null and void, the valuation must be under Section 40 if the party is a signatory to the document.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was partly allowed; the direction to value the injunction prayer under Section 27(a) was set aside, while the direction to value the declaration under Section 40 was confirmed.
ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to fair and decreetal order dated 20.12.2023 passed in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S. No.300 of 2021 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Alandur.
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the respondent for rejection of Plaint on condition that the petitioner shall value the suit claim under Section 27(a) and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
2. The petitioner herein filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the 1st respondent from alienating or encumbering the Suit property. He also sought for declaration that the registered Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2020 was null and void. The Suit has been valued by the petitioner under Section 27(c) and 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee Act. While dismissing the petition filed for rejection of plaint, the Trial Court directed the petitioner to value the Suit claim under Section 27(a) and 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner correctly valued the injunction prayer under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and the direction issued by the Trial Court to value the Suit claim under Section 27(a) is not correct on the face of it. The learned counsel further submits that the document sought to be declared as null and void is a Settlement deed not supported by any consideration. Therefore, the petitioner valued it under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as of today, the valuation adopted by the petitioner with regard to injunction prayer is correct. On the other hand, if any issue is framed with regard to the Title, then the petitioner may have to value the Suit under Section 27(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a party to the Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2020 and the property covered under Settlement Deed was valued at Rs.25 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to pay Court fee on the face value of the document as per Section 40 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.
5. As far as the prayer for bare injunction is concerned, the petitioner has correctly valued it under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that only in case framing of any issue with regard to the Title dispute, the question of valuing it under Section 25(a) would arise. As on today, as per the averments found in the plaint, the Suit is filed praying for injunction, and the said relief is valued under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. In the absence of any issue with regard to the Title, the direction issued by the Trial Court to value the prayer for injunction under Section 27(a) is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
6. As far as the second prayer regarding declaration of Settlement Deed dated 20.03.2020 as null and void is concerned, the petitioner is a party to the document and the said document is valued at Rs.25 lakhs in the document itself. It is settled law that if the party to the document wants to avoid it by seeking a declaration, the same shall be valued under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act. The Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the valuation shall be under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act and directed the petitioner to value the same accordingly. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Trial Court with regard to the direction to value the 2nd prayer in the plaint under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act.
7. In view of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed
A party seeking to declare a document null and void must value the claim under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act if they are a party to the document, while an injunction claim can be valued....
The court clarified the applicable valuation sections under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for declaratory relief and document enforceability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of determining the valuation of properties and Court fees payable as preliminary issues, and the need to consider the provisions und....
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 ....
The suit must be valued in terms of the Act in force when it was instituted, and the market value of the suit property must be reckoned prima facie at the guideline value fixed by the authorities con....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.