A defendant must file a written statement to dispute the plaintiff's valuation; reliance on external valuation certificates by the court is an improper basis for rejecting a plaint.

JUDGMENT :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The appeal has been filed challenging the rejection of the plaint consequent to the failure of the appellant/plaintiff to pay additional court fee as directed by the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.55 of 2012, dated 09.01.2015.

2. The appellant herein filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property. He also sought for mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal construction made in the suit property.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to two persons namely Selvanathan and Pattabi as per the Release Deeds dated 25.04.1990 executed by children of one Victor Jeganathan. The plaintiff purchased the suit properties from the duly appointed Power of Attorney of Selvanathan and Pattabi under Sale Deed dated 01.03.1994. When the plaintiff visited his property on 02.04.2012, he noted that the defendant committed trespass into the suit property and put up a construction. Hence, the above said suit was filed.

4. The defendant filed a petition in I.A.No.158 of 2013 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued. As per the plaint averment, the plaintiff valued the suit property at Rs.5,01,000/- and paid the court fee of Rs.37,575.50/-. It was the specific case of the defendant that he purchased the property from its original owner under Sale Deed dated 19.03.2008, wherein the market value of the suit property was mentioned as Rs.40,00,000/-. It was also stated by the respondent/defendant that he obtained a Valuation Certificate from the Taluk Office valuing the suit property at Rs.78,12,563/-. Therefore, according to the defendant, the suit property was undervalued by the plaintiff and hence, the proper court fee was not paid. On this ground, he sought for rejection of the plaint.

5. The appellant/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit denying the valuation mentioned in the Valuation Certificate relied on by the respondent/defendant. It was stated by the appellant/plaintiff that in the Valuation Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the suit land as well as building were valued, whereas the plaintiff sought for recovery of vacant possession of the land alone. It was also stated by the appellant/plaintiff in his counter affidavit that the respondent/defendant was set exparte and an exparte order was passed on 28.11.2012, thereafter, on application filed by the respondent/defendant, the exparte decree was set aside and the matter was posted for filing of written statement. However, without filing the written statement, the respondent/defendant filed a present petition seeking rejection of the plaint, disputing the valuation adopted by the appellant/plaintiff. It was also stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the petition filed by the respondent/defendant without filing written statement was not maintainable and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. The Trial Court, based on the Valuation Certificate relied on by the respondent/defendant, partly allowed the petition filed by him and directed the appellant/plaintiff to pay the court fee on the one half of the market value of the suit property under Section 25 (b) of the Puducherry Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1972 (i.e., Rs.38,68,706.50/-). Since the appellant/plaintiff failed to pay the additional court fee on the half of the market value as fixed by the Trial Court, as a necessary consequence, the suit was dismissed by rejecting the plaint. Though the Trial Court p