TAMILARASAN Vs. LATHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.970 of 2017 is directed against the order allowing the petition filed for amendment of plaint under Order 6, Rules 17 and 18 of C.P.C. by the plaintiff in I.A.No.205 of 2017 in O.S.No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi. C.R.P.(MD)No. 995 of 2017 is directed against the order dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner/third defendant to frame the question relating to Court fee as a preliminary issue in I.A.No.49 of 2017 in O.S.No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the third defendant in the suit in O.S.No.109 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.109 of 2016 for declaration of her title and permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3/defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is stated in the plaint that the suit property is an extent of 1 Acre 69 cents in Survey No.115/1 in Kottaimedu Village within Narayanapuram Panchayat in Kamuthi group in Kamuthi Taluk in Ramanathapuram District. In the description of plaint schedule, the property is described as a land measuring an extent of 1 Acre 49 Cents excluding an extent of 20 Cents which was purchased by the first defendant in the suit. In the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the defendants 2 and 3 are making an attempt to put up construction. In the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3, specific averments were made disputing the title of the plaintiff. It is further stated in the written statement that the third defendant has put up a residential building in the suit property based on the sale deed dated 26.05.2016. The third defendant specifically raised an issue regarding maintainability of the suit by showing the suit property as a vacant site. It is to be noted that the suit was laid in November, 2016 and the written statement of defendants 2 and 3 was filed in January, 2017.

(3.) After the written statement was filed, the plaintiff filed a petition in I.A.No.205 of 2017 to amend the plaint. The amendment was to value the property as a ryotwari punja land by taking 30 times the kist (land revenue) payable for the land. In short, in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition, it is admitted that the suit has been valued under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Since the land has been classified as a punja land, it is stated that the suit property has been wrongly valued by giving market value for the land. This petition for amendment though was opposed by the revision petitioner, the trial Court allowed the petition by holding that the Court fee payable for the suit property under Section 7(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, is acceptable and that the question regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court should be decided at the time of trial. The order of trial Court does not appear to be one following the settled proposition of law nor specific provisions of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.