Court fees must be determined based on the law in force at the time of filing the suit, and applications questioning valuation must be made before evidence is recorded.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.04.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRP.No.260 of 2020

1. A.Arthanarisamy 2. K.G.Palanisamy

3. K.G.Arunachalam : Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants1,3,4 Versus Alagumani (died)

1. Selvi Ragavi

2. Ranjith Anand : Respondents 1 &2/Respondents 2 &3 /Plaintiffs 2 & 3 Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 18.12.2019 made in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in O.S.No.196 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Manoharan For Respondents : Ms.R.A.Monalisa for Mr.R.Marudhachalamoorthy ***

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 18.12.2019 made in I.A.No.4 of 2019 in O.S.No.196 of

2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for appreciation and consideration in this Revision Petition, are as follows:

2.1. The Suit in O.S.No.196 of 2011 was filed by the Plaintiffs seeking declaration of the Plaintiffs are absolute owners of the Suit properties; for declaration of the cancellation deed of the sale deed as null and void; for permanent injunction against the Defendants 1 to 3, restraining him from alienating or creating any encumbrance over the Suit properties; for permanent injunction restraining the second Defendant from entertaining any document, if the first Defendant produce it before the second Defendant's office for registration with respect of the Suit property; for directing the second Defendant deleting the entry of cancellation sale deed executed in favour of the first Plaintiff by the second Defendant and declaring the title to the Plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the Suit property and seeking cancellation of the sale deed as null and void. After the Plaintiff had filed an affidavit as P.W-1- examination in chief, the first Defendant had filed a Petition in I.A.No.4 of 2019 seeking valuation of the property and also to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the subject matter of the Suit property by filing Petition under Section 12 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act . As per the contents of the Petition, I.A.No.4 of 2019 in O.S.No.196 of 2011, the first Defendant as Petitioner has claimed that if the property had been properly valued as per the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act , the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode will not have the jurisdiction to try the Suit. The Plaintiff had wantonly suppressed the valuation of the Court fees by clever drafting and avoided payment of Court fees by claiming 30 times kist as “market value”. The Suit is for declaration of title and for seeking the relief of declaration that the sale deed executed by the second Defendant in favour of the first Plaintiff as null and void. Therefore, to consider the Court fees as in the light of the market valuation of the property. The same was resisted by the Plaintiff as Respondent stating that amendment to the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act came into force in the year 2017 whereas the Suit was filed in the year 2011. Therefore, as on the date of filing of the Suit what was the valuation was in force as stated in the statue book is to be applied and the law as amended cannot be invoked. After due enquiry, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode had dismissed the I.A.No.4 of 2019 in O.S.No.196 of 2011. Aggrieved by the same, the first Defendant as Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the Civil Revision Petition under Article

227 of Constitution of India.

3. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the first Defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.196 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengod