The court clarified the applicable valuation sections under the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act for declaratory relief and document enforceability.

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Final order passed in IA.No.5233/2016 in OS No.615/2016 on the file of IV Assistant Court (FAC),II Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 13.12.2019.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A. Sundara Vadhanan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Chandrasekaran

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Fair and Final order passed in IA.No.5233/2016 in OS No.615/2016 on the file of IV Assistant Court (FAC), II Assistant Court, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 13.12.2019.

2. Heard Mr.A.Sundara Vadhanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he had filed a suit in O.S.No.615 of 2016 for the relief of declaration to declare the sale agreement dated 06.10.2010, registered as Document No.831 of 2010, as not valid in the eye of law and not enforceable against him, and also for a consequential declaration to declare the Memorandum of Understanding entered between him and the respondent on 16.02.2011 as not valid and not binding on him.

4. In the said suit, the respondent herein had taken out an Interlocutory Application with a prayer that the suit had not been properly valued as per the provisions of Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which was stoutly opposed to by the petitioner by contending that the suit could only be valued as done by the petitioner under Section 25(d) of the said Act. However, the Court below, without considering the claim made by the petitioner, had held that the suit could only be valued under Section 40 and that the market value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit would be the basis upon which the Court fee should be paid, and allowed the application filed by the respondent.

5. He would submit that the suit had also been dismissed for non-payment of the Court fee and that he had taken steps to restore the suit, which is kept pending disposal, subject to the result of the present revision petition. He would submit that the suit had not been filed with regard to the property but had been filed only in relation to the documents and their enforceability, and therefore the same is not capable of being valued. Hence, the petitioner had valued the suit by invoking the provisions of Section 25(d) of the Act.

6. Therefore, the finding of the Court below that only Section 40 would be applicable and that the payment of court fee should be on the market value of the property is wholly improper. He would further submit that the respondent has not parted with the entire sale consideration with regard to the property, which is also admitted by him. The petitioner cannot be mulcted with the higher liability of valuing the suit under Section 40 and therefore he seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the order impugned in this revision petition.

7. Countering his submissions, Mr. K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that the suit had to be necessarily valued only under Section 40 of the Act, as the prayer that has been sought by the petitioner in the plaint is to declare the documents as not valid and not enforceable against the plaintiff / the petitioner herein.

8. Therefore, the reliance placed upon Section 25(d) o the Act by the petitioner is wholly improper, as the said provision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, he seeks dismissal of