THANGAVEL Vs. DHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed the suit for declaration and injunction and paid the Court fee under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by calculating the market value at thirty times the survey assessment. The respondent claimed title to the suit property under a settlement deed dated 05.07.1985. In this settlement deed, the value of the suit property was given as Rs.43,000/-.

(2.) The Trial Court dealt with the issue with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that the court-fee paid was correct and that the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved by this, the defendants filed the present revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is not necessary for the Court to look anywhere-else except the averments in the plaint itself, wherein the respondent based his right on a settlement deed in which the market value is given. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that there was deliberate under-valuation of the suit, which the respondent is not entitled to do and reliance was placed on a decision reported in D.Pattammal vs. K.Kalyanasundaram (1988 TNLJ 260), wherein a learned Judge of this Court while dealing with the correctness of the Court fee paid in a suit under Section 30 of the Act, held that the market value should be determined in the absence of evidence as the actual market value for which it would be possible for a property to be to be sold in the open market, regardless of any consideration, such as litigation relating to it.