LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-392

NAGAJOTHI Vs. M.RAMUTHAI

Decided On January 10, 2023
Nagajothi Appellant
V/S
M.Ramuthai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order of return dtd. 7/9/2022 by the learned Principal District Judge, Theni in unnumbered filing No.OS/10847/2022 CNR No. TNTH010047702022, dtd. 7/9/2022.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the above suit before the Principal District Court, Theni as against the respondents herein, for the relief of partition for her share in the joint family property and also for permanent injunction. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the value of suit property is Rs.17,62,700.00. The value of plaintiff's share is Rs.4,49,475.00. The court fee was paid under Sec. 37 (2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 for Rs.5,000.00. The learned District Judge, Theni returned the plaint for certain defects including a query of jurisdiction as per the share value of the property on 24/8/2022 and the same was re-presented by the plaintiff on 30/8/2022 after compliance of the defects. With regard to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff has stated that as per Sec. 37(2) of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, the value of the plaintiff's share or market value of the suit property has no relevance and payment of court fee alone has to be considered. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the citations 2013 (2) CTC 342 and 1995 MLJ NOC 30. Thereafter, on 7/9/2022, the plaint was once again returned with the following endorsement:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for petitioner projected that as per the amended act of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, the total market value of suit property alone has to be reckoned for the purpose of deciding the court fees and as per Sec. 53 of Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, where the fee payable is at a fixed rate the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value of the suit property. Therefore, the Court has erroneously returned the papers.