Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20259
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice P. DHANABAL
S.RAVICHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
S.K.KARUNAKARAN – Respondent
Accurate property valuation is essential for determining court fees; outdated valuations cannot be relied upon for assessments.
Headnote:
Court Fees - Civil Revision Petition - Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 - Section 12(2), Order VII Rule 11 - The court analyzed the valuation of the suit property as per Section 7(1) and emphasized the importance of accurate valuation in determining the court fees payable, ultimately upholding the trial court's dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, as defendants, challenged the dismissal of their interlocutory application regarding the valuation and court fees of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession by the respondent. They claimed the property was undervalued, leading to a deficit in court fees.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the respondent's suit was undervalued, whether the court fees were appropriately assessed, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The key reasoning was that the valuation of property as per the current guidelines is crucial for determining court fees, and only relevant, up-to-date valuation certificates should be considered.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 24.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.294 of 2022 in O.S.No.19 of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, wherein, the trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application.
2. These petitioners filed an interlocutory application before the trial court under Section 12(2) of TamilNadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 & Order VII Rule 11, r/w.Section.151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking to pass an order by holding enquiry as regard the valuation o f suit as preliminary issue before hearing of the suit and if the suit has not been properly valued, direct the respondent/plaintiff to pay deficit court fee on proper valuation. The trial Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
The petitioners are the defendants in the main suit. The respondent herein had filed the main suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. According to the petitioner, the suit property was valued at Rs.13,00,000/- and paid Court fees of Rs.39,000/-. In fact, the value of the property is Rs.26,72,158/- and thereby the respondent ought to have paid court fees of Rs.80,165/-. In the suit property, the respondent had put up construction, but the respondent only value the vacant site. Further, the suit is barred by limitation.
5. According to the respondent, this petition is filed only to delay the proceedings and the valuation certificate was issued by the concerned authorities and based on the said value only, they valued the suit property. The respondent referred the document dated 09.06.2017, but the suit was filed in the year 30.01.2018. The valuation certificate filed by the petitioners was superseded and the value of the property is only Rs.1,810/- per square meter, as per the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Cuddalore dated 23.01.2018. When the suit was filed by the respondent before the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore in O.S.No.140 of 2016 only to avoid technical objections, he filed a petition in I.A.No.397 of 2017 to withdraw the suit and filed the present suit on the same cause of action. The suit is not barred by limitation. Therefore, the petition has no merits, the superstructure available in the suit property does not belong to the respondent/Plaintiff. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the petitioners Ex.P.1 was marked and on the side of the Respondent Ex.R1 was marked, no oral evidence adduced by either parties. The trial Court after hearing both side dismissed the said petition.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondent herein has filed a suit for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property and valued the suit property as Rs.1,810/- per square meter and he failed to include the superstructure value in the suit property. The suit is also barred by limitation, since the relief of cancellation of sale deed is well beyond three years from the date of its execution. Therefore, he filed a petition before the trial Court in I.A.No.294 of 2022 in O.S.No.19 of 2018 under section 12 (2) of TamilNadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 & Order VII Rule 11, r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. Further, the sale deed was registered on 24.03.2016, in respect of the same two survey number for Rs.59,99,400/-. The original value of the suit property is Rs.26,72,158/- and as per the guideline value dated 25.01.2017, the value is Rs.346/- per square feet. The suit property is 7723 Square feet. Therefore, the value is Rs.26,72,158/- But the plaint is valued only Rs.13,00,000/- The trial Court failed to consider the above said aspects and dismissed the petition. There
