Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62557
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI
A. GOVINDAMMAL – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
CRP/873/2016
In a suit for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of immovable property, the Court fee payable is only as per Sections 40 and 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955.
Headnote:
COURT FEES - SUIT FOR DECLARATION - SECTION 40 AND 25 OF THE TAMIL NADU COURT FEES AND SUIT VALUATION ACT, 1955 - INTERPRETATION - COURT FEE PAYABLE - [C.R.P.(PD).No.873 of 2016]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to declare the sale deed executed by her father in favour of the 1st defendant as null and void and for consequential injunction. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of C.P.C, r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., to reject the plaint, alleging that the petitioner has not valued the suit properly under Section 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 and suit is barred by limitation. The said I.A. was dismissed by the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, vide order dated 29.01.2016. While dismissing the application, the learned Judge directed the petitioner to value the suit under Section 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act within three weeks from the date of that order and pay the Court fee.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner has to pay the Court fee on the market value of the property as on the value of date of filing of the suit. The petitioner is directed to value the suit based on the value of immovable property involved in the suit as on the date of filing of the suit along with proper Court fee, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Judge is directed to receive the Court fee so paid, if immovable property is properly valued as on the date of filing of the plaint and paid Court fee as per Sections 40 and 25(b) of the Act and proceed further to dispose the suit on merits and in accordance with law. If the petitioner fails to pay the Court fee as per the market value of the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the learned Judge is directed to reject the plaint.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has valued the suit properly under Section 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955?
Ratio Decidendi: When a suit is filed for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right or title or interest in money, movable or immovable property, the Court fee has to be computed on the value of the subject matter of the suit. In the present suit, the petitioner is seeking for declaration to declare the sale deed dated 17.05.1988, executed by her father in favour of the 1st defendant as null and void. The petitioner is seeking cancellation of sale deed by seeking the relief of declaration that the said sale deed is null and void. In view of the said relief sought for in the present suit, the petitioner has to pay the Court fee on the value of the subject matter of the suit i.e., immovable property. The petitioner is seeking declaration and consequential injunction. As per Section 25 (b) of the Act, when the plaintiff seeks for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of immovable property, the Court fee shall be computed on one half of the market value of the property or on Rs.1,500/-, whichever is higher.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
C.R.P.(PD).No.873 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(PD)No.873 of 2016
and C.M.P.No.4805 of 2016
A.Govindammal
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary,
Sathyamoorthy Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
New No.2, Old No.15, S.V.Chidambaram Road,
Kattabomman Block, Jafferkhanpet,
Chennai 600 083.
2.V.Thiyagarajan
3.Vijayalakshmi
4.Premavathi
5.V.Sundaravadivelu (deceased)
6.S.Kalarani
7.S.Venkatasubramanian
8.Mohanapriya
.. Respondents
(respondents 6 to 8 brought on record as LRs
of the deceased 5th respondent vide Court
order dated 03.07.2017 made in C.M.P.No.10776
of 2016 in C.R.P.No.873 of 2016)
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.873 of 2016
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 29.01.2016
made in I.A.No.7952 of 2015 in O.S.No.4100 of 2013 on the file of the
IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner
: Mr.L.Rajasekar
For Respondents : M/s.S.Veeraraghavan (For RR2 to 4)
O R D E R
(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing')
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order and
decree dated 29.01.2016 made in I.A.No.7952 of 2015 in O.S.No.4100 of
2013 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as
the respondents 2 to 4 and perused the materials available on record.
3.The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.4100 of 2013 on the file of
the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Originally, he filed the said
suit against one Venkatachala Patthar/1st defendant and 1st respondent, for
2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.873 of 2016
a declaration, to declare the sale deed executed by her father viz.,
Chockalinga Naicker in favour of the 1st defendant and permanent
injunction, restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with her
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Pending
suit, the 1st defendant died and the respondents 2 to 5 were brought on
record as legal heirs of the deceased 1st defendant. In the suit, the
petitioner valued the suit under Sections 25(d) and 27(c) of the Tamil
Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to
as, 'the Act'). The respondents 2 to 5, who were brought on record as
legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant, filed I.A.No.7952 of
2015 under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of C.P.C, r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., to
reject the plaint, alleging that the petitioner has not valued the suit
properly under Section 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act, 1955 and suit is barred by limitation. The said I.A. was
dismissed by the learned IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
vide order dated 29.01.2016. While dismissing the application, the
learned Judge directed the petitioner to value the suit under Section 25
(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act within three
3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.873 of 2016
weeks from the date of that order and pay the Court fee. The petitioner
filed memo dated 09.02.2016, remitting the Court fee of Rs.4,500/-, by
valuing the suit based on the value mentioned in the sale deed bearing
Document No.802 of 1988. The learned Judge returned the said memo
stating that “the Court has ordered the plaintiff to value the suit under
Section 25(b) as such how the Court fee can be paid at this stage is to be
stated”. On such return, the petitioner has come out with the present
Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order of the learned Judge dated
29.01.2016, directing the petitioner to value the suit under Section 25 (b)
of the Act within three weeks, in the application in I.A.No.7952 of 2015
in O.S.No.4100 of 2013 filed by the respondents 2 to 5. According to th
