R.SATHIYAMURTHI Vs. R.MUNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the sole Defendant in O.S. No. 126 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam. The Respondents are the Plaintiffs in the said Suit. The Respondents have filed the said Suit for Partition and for separate possession of 3/4th share in the suit properties to them. The Suit was originally valued under Section 37(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. In the Written Statement filed by the Petitioner/Defendant, in Paragraph No. 14, it was contended that the Suit had not been properly valued and the Court-fee paid was also not correct. According to the further averments, the suit property is not a Ryotwari land and it is only a commercial site. Therefore, according to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs ought to have paid the Court-fee on the market value of the suit property as required under Section 7(2)(g) r/w Section 37(1) of the Act. The market value of the suit property according to the Defendant is more than Rs. 50 lakhs on the date of filing of the Suit. Hence, according to the Defendant, the Suit as valued by the Plaintiffs is not correct.

(2.) Subsequent to the filing of the Written Statement, the Plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 306 of 2010 seeking to amend the Plaint so as to value the Suit property under Section 37(2) of the Act. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs valued the suit property at Rs. 13,02,000/- and the value of the 3/4th share is Rs. 9,76,000A. However, as provided in Section 37(2) of the Act, the Plaintiffs paid a fixed Court-fee of f750/-.

(3.) Thereafter, the Petitioner/Defendant filed LA. No. 264 of 2010 requesting the Trial Court to decide the valuation of the suit properties and the Court-fee as a preliminary issue. In the said Application, it was contended by the Petitioner that Court-fee ought not to have been paid under Section 37(1) r/w Section 7(2)(g) of the Act. But, it was contended by the Plaintiffs before the Trial Court that Section 7(2)(g) of the Act is not the appropriate provision under which, the valuation is to be made. It is also contended that as provided in Section 37(2) of the Act, the Plaintiffs is bound to pay the Court-fee and accordingly, they have also paid Rs. 750/-. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, the valuation made in the Plaint for the 3/4th share of the Plaintiffs is a correct valuation and the Court-fee paid by them is also appropriate Court-fee.