C.R.P. (PD) No.2305 of 2022

& C.M.P.No.11815 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.07.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

C.R.P. (PD) No.2305 of 2022

& C.M.P.No.11815 of 2022

Pichandi

...

Petitioner /

Plaintiff

versus

1.Appaswamy Associates,

Represented by its Partner,

Jeyaraj. A

Having Office at No.20,

SBI Officers Colony,

Arumbakkam, Chennai.

2.Balaji

3.Rajasekar

4.Srinivasan

...

Respondents /

Defendants

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 21.04.2022

made in I.A.No.615 of 2016 in O.S.No.496 of 2015 on the file of the learned

Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee by allowing this petition.

For Petitioner

: M/s.P.Shanthini

for Mr.R.Karthikeyan

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. (PD) No.2305 of 2022

& C.M.P.No.11815 of 2022

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the

order of the learned Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee dated

21.04.2022 made in I.A.No.615 of 2016 in O.S.No.496 of 2015.

2.

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed the

suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of Sale Deed dated

13.10.2014 as null and void; the plaintiff had chosen to pay the court fee

under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act

[hereinafter referred to as 'Court Fees Act']; the first respondent / first

defendant filed a petition to reject the plaint by stating that the court fee for

the suit ought to have been paid under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act and

the said petition was allowed by giving a direction to the plaintiff to pay the

court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act. Aggrieved over that, the

plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted

that the Sale Deed on which the relief of declaration sought is not supported

by consideration; since the sale consideration has not been passed the

plaintiff has chosen to pay the court fee under Section 25(d) of the Court

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. (PD) No.2305 of 2022

& C.M.P.No.11815 of 2022

Fees Act; the learned trial Judge without considering the above vital aspects

had passed the order directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee under Section

40 of the Court Fees Act and hence it should be reversed.

4.

The contention that the sale consideration was not passed

is the plea taken by the plaintiff in the suit. But the fact remains that the Sale

Deed which is executed for a sale consideration as specified in the deed is

challenged in the suit. There is a specific provision under Section 40 in the

Court Fees Act, which prescribes the court fee for cancelling the deeds. As

per Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, if any document is sought to be

cancelled the amount has to be valued on the value of the property for which

sale deed was executed and the court fee should be paid only on that basis.

5.

Admittedly the alleged Sale Deed dated 13.10.2014 is

said to have been executed for a valuable consideration of Rs.26,00,000/-.

The allegations of not receiving the consideration will not exclude the

plaintiff from paying the court fee as per Section 40 of the Court Fees Act.

The liability to pay the court fee can only be in accordance with the Court

Fees Act and not otherwise. Since the learned trial Judge has rightly

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P. (PD) No.2305 of 2022

& C.M.P.No.11815 of 2022

appreciated the matter in issue and allowed the petition, I do not find any

ground for interference. However it is seen that the learned trial Judge has

not given any time limit to the petitioner to pay the court fee, a direction

should be given that the court fee should be paid by the plaintiff within a

period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.