DRAVIDAMANI Vs. MUTHUKUMARASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.211 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, are the revision petitioners.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the above suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for injunction and also for declaring the release deed dated 28.1.2011 as null and void. The plaintiffs valued the first item of suit property at Rs.1000/ - and the second item of suit property at Rs.5000/ - and paid the Court fee under Section 25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court Fee Examiner raised objection to the value given by the plaintiffs and stated that the proper Court fee is payable under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and the value of the suit property cannot be fixed thirty times of kist and the market value of the property has to be ascertained. The Court Fee Examiner relied upon the release deed which is sought to be declared as null and void to arrive at the market value of the property and fixed the market value of the property at Rs.3,00,840/ - and under Section 25 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the Court fee has to be paid on one half of the market value and that order was upheld by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that though the Court Fee Examiner is right in stating that the Court fee payable is only under Section 25(b) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the Court Fee Examiner and the Court below erred in directing the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee on the market value and according to the plaintiffs the property is used for storing dump materials and thirty times of the revenue is to be construed as the market value and the value fixed in the plaint is more than thirty times of the revenue and therefore the Court below erred in directing the plaintiffs to pay the Court fee by fixing the market value at Rs.3,00,840/ -. He further relied upon the Judgement reported in 1999 (III) CTC 88 (Raman Vs. Rahmathunnisa and two others) in support of his contention. He therefore submitted that the Court Fee Examiner and the Court below erred in demanding the Court fee on the value fixed in the release deed which is challenged by him as null and void and the plaintiffs are not bound by the value given in the release deed.