The valuation of the Court fee must be correct in order for the court to have jurisdiction over the case.

C.R.P.No.1219 of 2021

C.R.P (NPD) No.1219 of 2021

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

Mr.Om Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

Revision Petitioner submitted that the learned Sub-Judge, Tambaram, had

returned the plaint several times raising many queries. Subsequently, it was

complied with by the learned Counsel before the trial Court. After several

returns and compliances, the same was taken on file and the suit was

numbered. After issuance of summons to the Defendant, the Defendant

entered appearance and filed a written statement.

2. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the

Petitioner that the Plaintiff had purchased the property from the Defendant,

an extent of 175 Sq.ft. Subsequently on measuring by the Firka Surveyor, it

was found that it was not as per FMB Sketch. Therefore, he sought another

property marked as Schedule 'D' in the sketch attached in the typed set. In

the meanwhile, the Defendant, who had sold the property, was staying at the

first floor of the building as a permissive occupier. The learned Senior

Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the prayer in the plaint seeking

1/4

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

C.R.P.No.1219 of 2021

for declaration, mandatory injunction and also damages for use and

occupation of the Defendant till he delivers vacant possession. The learned

Sub-Judge, Tambaram, suo-motu took up preliminary issues regarding

Court fee valuation and after hearing both parties has given a finding that

the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court, Tambaram, is not attracted and the

valuation is higher.

3. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the

Revision Petitioner that the learned Judge had valued the Court fee for the

purpose of mandatory injunction and also based on the market value and

thereby, arrived at a wrong conclusion.

4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that

regarding valuation of the entire Court fee, it is the subject matter involving

facts and law which cannot be decided without evidence. The learned Judge

also relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which he has

chosen a few lines and arrived at the conclusion that permissive occupier

cannot be evicted on prayer of mandatory injunction. It is the submission of

2/4

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

C.R.P.No.1219 of 2021

the learned Senior Counsel that mandatory injunction is maintainable either

against the tenant or permissive occupier. Therefore, the finding of the

learned Sub-Judge, Tambaram, is against the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, which the learned Judge himself had relied on and the same

is to be set aside.

5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent is present in Court

and seeks a short adjournment.

At his request, post the matter on 27.03.2023 on top of the list.

23.03.2023

asi

3/4

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

C.R.P.No.1219 of 2021

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.

asi

C.R.P (NPD) No.1219 of 2021

23.03.2023

4/4

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