Madras High Court
Subramani vs Panneer on 17 December, 2014
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P (PD) No.709 of 2012 Subramani ...Petitioner vs. Panneer ...Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order in O.S.No.120 of 2009 dated 07.12.2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gunaseelan For Respondent : Mr.G.Rajan ------ ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai is the petitioner in the present revision. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction against the respondent. The relief was valued in the plaint adopting a notional value at Rs.1,10,000/- under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, at the time of inspection, found the valuation under Section 27(c) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act to be improper and gave instructions to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai to issue a check slip. Accordingly, a check slip was issued for ascertaining the market value of the suit property and to collect the deficit Court fee, if any, after getting the objection of the petitioner/plaintiff.
3. The trial Court passed an order fixing the market value of the suit property at Rs.7,00,000/- and directing the revision petitioner/plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fee and consequently make amendments in the valuation and Court fee column of the plaint. The said order dated 07.12.2010 is under challenge in the present revision.
4. Suits for bare injunction are to be valued under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. For better appreciation, the entire section is reproduced hereunder:
27. In a suit for injunction --
(a) where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and
(i) where the plaintiff alleges that his title to the property is denied, or
(ii) where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees seven hundred and fifty], whichever is higher;
(b) where the prayer relates to the plaintiff's exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit any mark, name, book, picture, design or other thing and is based on an infringement of such exclusive right, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on [rupees two thousand], whichever is higher;
(c) in any other case, where the subject-matter of the suit has a market value or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on 3[rupees one thousand], whichever is higher. "
5. Suits for injunction in respect of immovable property, where the plaintiff himself alleges that his title to the property is denied or where an issue is framed regarding the plaintiff's title to the property, are to be valued and the Court fee to be paid on half of the market value of the property or subject to a minimum under Section 27(a) of the Act. If a case does not fall under Section 27(a), then only the same can be valued and Court Fee can be paid under Section 27(c) of the Act. In the case on hand, in Para 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff himself has clearly made an averment that the defendant disputed the title of the plaintiff. The relevant portion in vernacular is extracted hereunder:
gpujpthjp tHf;F brhj;ij mgfhpf;f ntz;Lk; vd;w bfl;l vz;zk; bfhz;L 2009 Mk; Mz;L Mf!;L khjk; 20 Mk; njjp tHf;F brhj;jpy; gpujpthjpa[k; kw;Wk; mtUld; rpyUk; Tl;lhf te;J tHf;F brhj;jpy; thjpf;F ve;jtpj chpika[k; fpilahJ vd;Wk;. tHf;F brhj;J v';fSf;nf brhe;jk; vd;Wk; Twpf;bfhz;L tHf;F brhj;jpy; gzpahl;fis gzp bra;a TlhJ vd;Wk; kpul;o jhth brhj;jpy; mj;JkPwp EiHa Kaw;rp bra;jhh;fs;
6. In view of the clear admission made in the plaint that the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property is disputed by the respondent/defendant, the valuation of the relief under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act is improper and on the other hand, the relief ought to have been valued under Section 27(a) of the Act. So far as the fixation of the market value of the property is concerned, admittedly the same was done by the trial Court based on the document relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff himself. However, there is lack of clarity in the order passed by the trial Court, which reads as follows:
Kothf. Jhth brhj;jpd; re;ij kjpg;g[ U:/7.00.000-? vd eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;L TLjy; ePjpkd;wf; fl;lzj;ij thjp brYj;j ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; mJ rk;ge;jg;gl;l chpa jpUj;j';fisa[k; thjp tHf;Fiuapy; bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ/
7. Though the trial Court has chosen to fix the market value of the suit property, it has omitted to state what is the value of the relief sought for and on what amount the Court fee should be paid. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify as follows:
The market value of the suit property is fixed as Rs.7,00,000/-. Under Section 27(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, Court Fee is payable on Rs.3,50,000/- being one half of the market value of the suit property.
8. With the above said clarification, the order of the learned trial Judge dated 07.12.2010 made in O.S.No.120 of 2009 is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
17.12.2014 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gpa To The Additional Subordinate Judge Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J., gpa C.R.P (PD) No.709 of 2012 17.12.2014