RAHAMATHUNNISA Vs. ABDUL SARAQ (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dtd. 5/11/2016 in Check Slip No.59/27/N in O.S.No.141 of 2010, on the file of District Munsif Court, Sankarapuram.

(2.) The petitioners instituted the suit O.S.No.141 of 2010, for declaration and consequential permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 to 14/ respondents 1 to 14 from in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is seen that during annual inspection, the Assistant Court Fee Examiner of this Court found that proper Court fee was not paid in the suit and issued Check Slip No.59/27/N. According to the Court Fee Examiner, the payment of Rs.75.0050/0 under Sec. 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (In short 'the Act') is not correct and the petitioners/plaintiffs have to pay a sum of Rs.14,450.00. Overruling the objections of the petitioners, the learned Judge, passed the impugned order directing the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs.14,450.00 as Deficit Court fee. Aggrieved over the order, the petitioners have come up with this Revision.

(3.) It is the submission of Mr.Mukund, learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit property is an agricultural land measuring an extent of 2 acres and 23 cents, in which, a house was constructed for agricultural purpose long back. But it was misconstrued as 2 1/4 cents = 972.28 sq.ft and the check slip was issued. Even though this position was explained in the reply, the learned Judge held that the suit property is not a Ryotwari land, just because there is a building in a portion of the land. In order to prove the case, the suit property is a Ryotwari land, the petitioners/plaintiffs have annexed documents viz., patta, chitta, adangal, extracts, kist receipts, in the plaint, however, the same was not properly appreciated by the learned Judge, which warrants interference of this Court.