ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.39 of 2020 in A.S.No.34 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri.

2.The revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff in O.S.No.362 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ponneri. Their father Dr.N.Mallikarjuna Rao filed the suit for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property and for costs and valued the suit property at Rs.6,000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.450.75/- under Section 30 of Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1965

3.The suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif, Ponneri, vide his decree and judgment dated 13.07.2010. The defendant in the suit filed an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Ponneri in which the present revision petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The application in I.A.No.106 of 2013 was originally filed by the plaintiff, Dr.N.Mallikarjuna Rao, to permit him to amend the valuation column by showing the market value of the annual rent of the shops for one year. The said amendment petition was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, vide his orders dated 05.12.2013. This order was challenged by the respondent in CRP.No.2268 of 2014 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court set aside the orders passed by the lower appellate Court and directed the respondent/plaintiff to file appropriate application for amending the plaint by giving correct market value of the property. It was also observed that it is open to the petitioner/defendant to file a counter and contest the said application. Thereafter, the plaintiff died and his legal heirs were impleaded as parties in the appeal suit. They filed an application in I.A.No.39 of 2020 in A.S.No.34 of 2010 for amending the valuation column of the plaint. According to them, the market value of the property is Rs.168 per sq.ft. and valued the suit for the purpose of Court fee payable under Section 30 of the Tamilnadu Court Fee Act as Rs.6,270/-.

4.The respondent filed a detailed counter and after full contest the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, vide his orders dated 16.03.2020 fixed the market value of the suit property at Rs.300 per sq.ft. and valued the entire property as Rs.1,10,000/-, aggrieved over which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5.Heard Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.R.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent.

6.Mr.G.RM.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that the suit was decreed by the trial Court and by enhancing the suit value of Rs.1,10,000/-, the decree passed by the trial Court might be questioned by the appellant in A.S.No.34 of 2010. According to him the value given by him at Rs.168 per sq.ft. is absolutely right.

7.Per contra Mr.R.Krishna Swamy, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the revision petitioners did not adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate their contention that the market value of the suit property is Rs.168 per sq.ft. and in fact no documentary evidence was adduced by them. On the other hand, the respondent filed guideline value for the year 2007 for Manali New Town.

8.A perusal of the orders passed by the lower appellate Court shows that it was left with no other option except to adopt guideline value given by the respondent and fix value of the suit property at Rs.1,10,000/.

It is appropriate to extract the orders passed by the lower appellate Court:

"7.Now solely with a view to bring the suit within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsif Court at Ponneri that is to bring it below Rs.1,00,000/- the petitioners have chosen to give very very under value of the suit property by the proposed amendment.

8.Further, the value of one sqft' of RCC Construction even in the year 2007 was at Rs.1,000/- for one square feet. Hence, if the real market value of the suit property is arrived at it will be not less t