Valuation and limitation objections in civil suits require trial resolution when involving mixed questions of law and fact.

ORDER

Challenging the order passed by the Trial Judge in I.A. No.7 of 2024, the defendants have preferred the present revision.

2. Before the Trial Court, the defendants filed an application to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was not properly valued and that valuation ought to have been made under Section 40 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, whereas improper court fee had been paid. On that ground alone, according to the defendants, the plaint ought to have been rejected. It was further contended that, under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the suit ought to have been filed within three years, whereas there was a delay of seven years from the date of partition and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation.

Hence, they prayed for rejection of the plaint.

3. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff contended that proper court fee had been paid and that the defendants had caused interference with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the suit was filed to protect their right and title, and the suit was well within limitation.

4. Considering the rival submissions, the Trial Judge, relying upon the ratio laid down in Mallavva and another vs. Kalsammanavara Kalamma (since dead) [Civil Appeal No.14803 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that when the issues raised between the parties involve mixed questions of law and fact, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial. The Trial Court further held that the objections regarding valuation were not sustainable, since court fee had been paid under Sections

25(b) and 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act, and the suit was one for declaration in respect of “A” and “B” Schedule properties based on possession. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submitted that even on a bare perusal of the partition deed executed between the parties, the “E” Schedule property allotted to the plaintiffs’ was valued at more than Rs.1.41 crores, but the property was not valued by showing its correct value as reflected in the partition deed. Therefore, the court fee paid is not proper and on that ground, the plaint ought to have been rejected. It is further contended that the suit was not filed within three years from the date of the partition deed and therefore, there is no subsisting cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation.

6. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that even assuming the court fee had not been properly valued, there is a remedy available before the Trial Court and the plaint cannot be rejected on that ground. In support of the same, reliance was placed on the decision in Marg Limited vv. Sushil Lalwani and Others [2026 SCC Online SC 647], wherein in paragraphs 34 and 35 it was held as under:

“34. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the High Court has merely recorded a conclusion that the suit is undervalued, without undertaking the necessary exercise of determining what, in its view, would constitute the proper valuation of the suit or the court fee payable in accordance with law. In the absence of such a finding, the direction, if any, to correct the valuation could not have been meaningfully complied with by the plaintiff. The failure to record such a determination further vitiates the impugned order, In the present case, even assuming that the relief sought by the appellant was undervalued and that the court fee paid was deficient, the High Court, instead of directing the appellant to correct the valuation and make good the deficit court fee, proceeded to reject the plaint outrightly.