LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-182

T KAMALAM Vs. PURASAWALKAM PERMANENT FUND LTD

Decided On February 25, 2014
T Kamalam Appellant
V/S
Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the original suit O.S. No. 2363 of 2006 decided by the XVIII Assistant Judge, City civil Court, Chennai are the petitioners in the present revision. They had availed a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Ltd., the respondent herein, by mortgaging the suit property in favour of the respondent herein under the mortgage deed dated 17.11.1994. Claiming that the amount due under the mortgage on the date of filing of the suit was Rs. 1,46,338.30 and expressing their preparedness to pay the said amount for the discharge of the mortgage debt, the revision petitioners had filed the above said suit for redemption of mortgage and also for permanent injunction. The respondent herein/defendant filed a written statement contending that the computation made by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs was not correct and that as on 30.06.2006, a sum of Rs. 10,87,819.51 was due under the mortgage. The learned trial Judge, after trial, accepted the case of the revision petitioners herein/plaintiffs and held that the amount due on the mortgage as on the date of filing of the suit was only Rs. 1,46,338.30. Based on the said finding, the learned trial Judge held that the revision petitioners/plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of a preliminary decree for redemption quantifying the amount due under the mortgage to be Rs. 1,46,338.30 and directing payment of the said amount together with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of plaint and also issued necessary directions. As against the said preliminary decree dated 15.04.2009 passed by the trial Court, the respondent herein/defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 74 of 2010 which came to be assigned to the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for disposal according to law. The appeal was valued at Rs. 1,47,388.30, being the amount declared to be due by the trial Court and Rs. 1000/- towards the value of the relief of injunction and paid a Court fee of Rs. 11,055/- on the memorandum of appeal. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who were respondents in the appeal, filed a miscellaneous petition in C.M.P. No. 842 of 2010 in A.S. No. 74 of 2010 questioning the correctness of the valuation of the remedy sought for in the appeal and the Court fee paid thereon and also the pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court to entertain the appeal and praying for deciding the said issues as preliminary issues. The learned appellate Judge, namely learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after hearing, held that the valuation of the appeal made on par with the valuation found in the plaint was correct and rejected the contentions of the revision petitioners/respondents in the appeal/plaintiffs. Accordingly, the learned XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dismissed the said miscellaneous petition C.M.P. No. 842 of 2010 by his order dated 21.12.2012. Questioning the correctness, legality and sustainability of the said order and contending that the said order came to be passed with material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction conferred on the appellate Court, the revision petitioners have brought forth this revision invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Both the parties are represented by counsel. The arguments advanced by Mr. M. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also by Mr. Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The materials available on record submitted by the Court below for reference in this Civil Revision Petition were also perused.

(3.) This revision has arisen out of an order passed by the appellate Court holding the valuation made in the appeal and the Court fee paid thereon being equivalent to the value adopted in the plaint and the Court fee paid in the trial Court were proper. Controversy in this case is whether in an appeal arising from a preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage, Court fee to be paid shall be computed on the basis of the value given in the plaint or on the amount found to be due by the trial Court or the value of the disallowed portion of the claim made by the mortgagee.